Re: GNA Shutting Down?

[Svetlana Tkachenko]

Gregory Casamento wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 19:40 Svetlana Tkachenko wrote:
are required to continue using a savannah or a gitlab officially as
github is nonfree and can't be added to official gnustep docs.
> We have a mirror on github now. Once we are on Savannah it will be 
> bidirectional.  We can call Savannah the master if that satisfies the FSF 
> political agenda.  Additionally, the whole point of the previous discussion 
> was to underscore the point that we can commit from either place.  
> 
> Using Savannah is untenable due to its shortcomings as previously described 
> in this thread.  

Apart from migration 'to git' taking 3 months and not being done
right...

Pull requests are a pain at Savannah. They have a patches section
(https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?8217) to submit proposed changes
without creating a fork-which-takes-ages-to-manually-approve, but it
does not allow inline comments on the diff.

Gregory Casamento wrote:
> I have seen nothing from RMS saying we can't mention where we are mirrored in 
> GNUstep docs.  If we did I would be shocked as this would restrict access to 
> free software. 

A freedom-respecting way to link a user to software which is only found
on github is by providing them with a tarball or a working git mirror.
Such mirror, while respecting the user's freedoms, may be less
convenient.

Gregory Casamento wrote:
>   I would like to hear directly from him on this subject.

I would be glad to have an official response from FSF about this as well
so I will perhaps forward a link to this thread to address@hidden .

Gregory Casamento wrote:
> Another option is for us to consider this a fork.  It would simplify a number 
> of things for us if that were the case. 

It is a fork only if it is different contents than the other copy.