Dmitry is right. The goal is to be done with GitHub soonish. Soonish
meaning phased.

Philip, this is item number 5.  Not only is it secondary to item 2, which
Payas is handling, but
it has to be handled after 2 is done.

So, once Eglot's mainline is the same as Emacs's, I will find some way for
the
current Github repo to somehow mirror only that part of Emacs.  Of course
by
force-pushing to the current repo.  This will be a "best effort thing".  If
it's a dump copy
of eglot.el from emacs.git -> git@github.com:joaotavora/eglot every 24h
then I'm perfectly
happy.  If something more sophisticated can be done, so much the better.
Regardless,
keeping history in that repo is not important because it won't be the
upstream by then.

Maybe there would be a point in "copying" the history into emacs.git,
> but this is a continuous process that would have to be synchronised on
> both sides (emacs.git and GitHub) all the time.  That sounds like more
> effort than the history is worth.
>

That's not the plan.  But if that _were_ the plan, then I can think of no
better
arguments than keeping history.  Good (Git) history is a benediction that
should
be preserved at (almost) all costs.

João Távora