discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Savannah vs. Gitlab


From: Svetlana A. Tkachenko
Subject: Re: Savannah vs. Gitlab
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:00:48 +1100

I spent an hour writing that e-mail. I was trying to be considerate and
informative and to suggest a useful direction. Now I will try to clarify
some to remedy some of the unintentional consequences that email caused:

Ivan Vučica wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Svetlana A. Tkachenko <
> svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:
> 
> > > In my view, due to the decentralized nature of Git, using GitHub does
> > > not restrict anyone's freedom.
> >
> > This is wrong. GitHub users run proprietary frontend scripts on their
> > computers. This is not ethical.
> 
> 
> While I don't think there is a need for GitHub to be the /primary/
> storage
> system for GS source code, I am curious about what you are attempting to
> object to here?
> 
> Who is "they" in "their computers"?
> - If GitHub, you're talking to their service over an API -- you are in
> control of the software running on your own computer.
> - If users, what is the proprietary frontend script that I am running
> when
> executing 'git pull'?
> 
> Were you perhaps talking about the Javascript that is downloaded and
> executed by your user agent? You are not required to visit the website to
> obtain the free software. By mailing in patches, or by hosting your own
> 'fork' to publish your patches, you are not required to visit the
> website.
> 
> Are you objecting to inability to interact with issue tracker? This might
> be the most valid objection, but there is an API
>   https://developer.github.com/v3/issues/
> and one could write a free frontend. Or one could host a separate issue
> tracker which, to make GitHub users happier, could offer GitHub sign-in.

I do not understand your response. The problem is that when explaining
users how to use github we would have to link them to it, and the
website frontend is proprietary. This is why I am objecting to using
GitHub as the official hosting, or to linking to it anywhere in GNUStep
official documentation or web sites.

Ivan Vučica wrote:
> 
> > Not pull requests, no issue tracking, no code review.
> >
> > The main advantage of GitHub is search-ability of the repository by
> > potential new contributors and a mirror already does this task. Even
> > though it looks pretty in my view the "code review" is an unimportant
> > feature and it does not have to be on a web page. This is the sort of
> > thing I do by e-mail for other projects.
> >
> 
> I feel strongly that good code review system for a large, mature project
> is
> anything but 'unimportant'. Email is, also, inadequate for this purpose.
> (And this is not the appropriate setting to expand my thoughts on this.)
> 
> See the lengthy and serious discussion Wikimedia had about which code
> review system to use:
>   https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_evaluation
> 
> I'd note that GitHub's code review tools are... wanting, and at the
> Dublin
> meeting we have generally agreed that use of any such code review tool
> would be optional.

I am glad you are paying attention to the code review facilities. I do
not understand the last statement about Dublin. Why optional?

Ivan Vučica wrote: 
> > Continuing to mention GitHub in this thread is a waste of time.
> 
> 
> Svetlana, do you believe that statement projects an appropriate attitude?

Where we are considering moving to something new and official, it is
indeed a waste of time (if you find this phrase derogatory, please tell
me another, as in my native language it is not).

Ivan Vučica wrote:
> > If
> > needed, there has to be a separate conversation about writing a sync
> > script of "something" with GitHub after the "something" is decided
> 
> 
> I happen to agree that bi-di sync should happen _from_ 'somewhere' _to_
> GitHub.
> 
> (be
> > it leaving things as is or moving to savannah+git, if needed).
> 
> 
> You are very restrictive in offering options: Subversion on Gna! which
> happens to be uni-directionally synced to github; or Git on Savannah.
> 
> Do you truly consider those the only options?

This bit is my personal opinion.


Svetlana



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]