Transfer BOB streams repo to nodejs org

[Fishrock123]

I hope this is the correct issue tracker for this.

I propose we move https://github.com/Fishrock123/bob into the nodejs github org under a more appropriate name.

"Future Streams (BOB)", maybe.

This should be done to help prevent that work from being lost/forgotten, as it is very hard to progress alone, and my primary projects presently do not relate to node.

The project is licensed under MIT (though I wish I'd put it under dual with BlueOak before any contributions were made), and has the DCO-1.1 in it's contributing document.

There are also a handful of related repos and npm modules:

• The status codes enum: bob-status (npm)
• A file system source: fs-source (npm)
• A file system sink: fs-sink (npm)
• A zlib transform: zlib-transform (npm)
• A crc32 transform: crc-transform (npm)
• Header for the C++ api: bob-base (npm)

I believe all of those are also MIT & DCO-1.1, and I'm not quite sure what to do with them, considering the "main" repo kinda depends on / tests them.

An alternate approach could be to stuff those additional modules all under a separate github org, I suppose.

cc @mcollina, @jasnell, @raynos

[Trott]

Hi, @Fishrock123! The procedure is detailed in https://github.com/nodejs/admin/blob/master/transfer-repo-into-the-org.md. Only thing I'm seeing missing in the repo is a code of conduct (which, if you wish, can just be a single sentence saying that the project uses the Node.js Code of Conduct and providing a link to https://github.com/nodejs/admin/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).

Other than that, this seems good to me.

[mcollina]

LGTM/+1

[cjihrig]

SGTM

[jasnell]

+1

[Trott]

The repo should get a code of conduct added before being transferred. Other than that, it seems ready.

[mhdawson]

+1 once code of conduct is added.

[brodybits]

Have you guys seen https://github.com/callbag/callbag?

It seems to provide an extremely flexible API for similar functionality as some kind of a standard. "Not a library, just a standard (...)"

[antsmartian]

Just curious here, what's the status/plan for this?

[jasnell]

Still undermined but we should discuss at the tsc meeting. Fwiw, I've incorporated a modified version of the c/c++ API into the quic implementation but we still need to decide overall direction here

[Fishrock123]

At this point the lack of interest here now makes me very hesitant to actually do this, since it is essentially 95?% my work still. (I don't think I've done anything to complicate contributions, though?)

[jasnell]

There does seem to be a lack of overall interest but, fwiw, I am using a variation on the c++ API in the quic implementation.