Is there any reference upstream announcing that you are the new maintainer?

Given there was no answer on travis-ci/gimme#206 but it has only been 9 days, I would like to wait a little bit (let's say max 30 days).

It's a weird situation, and the explanation is really clear. If we get no answer, I'm fine with going ahead with the fork.

Is there any reference upstream announcing that you are the new maintainer?

It's a bit weird, because I personally have been the maintainer for most of the project history, but I got laid off from Travis CI in 2019 after an acquisition. I'd like to get maintenance flowing again, and my attempts to work with current Travis CI maintainers haven't gone anywhere 😐 But, to @iMichka's point, I'm happy to wait a bit longer 😁

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. To keep this pull request open, add a help wanted or in progress label.

@meatballhat I sympathise with your position, that sounds rough ❤️. I feel like we need to hold off a migration until the "official" upstream approves it somewhere/somehow, just to avoid setting a precedent with this in future. Hopefully you understand we need to be overly cautious on this sort of thing 🙇🏻

@MikeMcQuaid Absolutely, I understand! Thank you ❤️

I've asked upstream one more time for a clarification: travis-ci/gimme#206 (comment)

Upstream is still silent on this. I think it is time for us to make a decision one way or another. How do we want to handle it?

@p-linnane If upstream is silent: we need to create a new formula with a new name and can consider deprecating this one.

@MikeMcQuaid Last commits were this past June, and v1.5.5 was cut then. Maybe we should wait a few more months on deprecation.

@meatballhat If you'd still like to add your fork, please open a PR for it with a new name.