{travis} and {circle} should go to ropensci imo. Currently {circle} is in review and I just recently found a way for http testing which seems to work (via {vcr}). Right after {circle}, {travis} should follow.
They are deps of {tic} which should go to CRAN afterwards.

Unfortunately my time is limited so this process goes slowly. Happy to accept help :)

Related to all the {tic} demo repos: I was never a fan of them and not sure if they are of any help. According to @krlmlr they were asked for when initialising the project.
Note that they are not depends but only "example repos".
I am not sure if moving them to a dedicated repo would make things better (from a dev POV).
I'd rather archive/delete them and keep things tidy and polish the documentation of {tic}.

Let's see what @krlmlr opinion is on this.

If these repos are required by documentation, we can move them elsewhere. If not, let's archive.

ping @jeroen

I see travis is now also eol. Do I understand it correctly that I should archive all of the repositories, except for circle ?

In theory yes but I would first want to check for remaining doc references and merge #295 first. Then we could archive (maybe I can even do it myself?) - need to check.

@jeroen Travis funtionality has been removed and all references to the example repos in the README as well. The mentioned repos can be archived.

Thanks for your help in cleaning up ropensci! I have now archived the above repo's.