| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:03 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests there. |
| 8 |
> However, would an outright move be contrary to our social contract? |
| 9 |
> [quoted] |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> That said, git itself is FOSS, and moving it back is not difficult |
| 12 |
> should bad things happen (though any in-progress pull-requests/etc would |
| 13 |
> be lost). The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself. Not sure if |
| 14 |
> others feel strongly about it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
To me it depends upon how dependent upon github people actually become. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If the primary workflow remains in people's distributed git repos, in |
| 19 |
git, then more copies "out there" including on github is simply more |
| 20 |
redundancy, As Linus likes to say, "real men" don't make backups, they |
| 21 |
post it to the net and let the dozens (in his case, likely tens of |
| 22 |
thousands, but...) of net copies be their backups. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As soon as github going down becomes a problem, however, or as soon as |
| 25 |
pull requests need to go thru github, then it's a problem, "depending |
| 26 |
upon" according to the social contract. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Arguably, letting github be the primary/only public link is problematic |
| 29 |
in that very way, since at that point github going down is a problem for |
| 30 |
those using the public link. OTOH, just having a mirror there and |
| 31 |
letting people submit pull requests via github as well as directly, |
| 32 |
shouldn't be a problem. IMO of course. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives