| 1 |
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:08:21PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very |
| 6 |
> > sad to witness this once again. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting |
| 10 |
> contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem is that it |
| 11 |
> is proprietary, which creates division, and could potentially create |
| 12 |
> problems down the road (no way to know - the sorts of things that can |
| 13 |
> happen anytime you depend on proprietary software). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If github were to go down, all you would have to do is use a command |
| 16 |
similar to the one given in the first message of this thread to switch |
| 17 |
upstream to another location. I would argue that there really isn't a |
| 18 |
hard dependency on github in the same way there would be if they were |
| 19 |
using some centralized vcs such as svn. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think this is a pretty weak argument for systems that use distributed |
| 22 |
vcs's like git. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will |
| 25 |
> > merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the |
| 26 |
> > merges properly. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> So, first, THANK YOU! |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all |
| 32 |
packages from the tree that have their upstream on github? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
Archives