| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> When talking about Gentoo Social Contract violation by GitHub |
| 4 |
> integration I apply to the following cause of the Social |
| 5 |
> Contract [1]: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> However, Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software or |
| 8 |
> metadata unless it conforms to the GNU General Public License, the |
| 9 |
> GNU Lesser General Public License, the Creative Commons - |
| 10 |
> Attribution/Share Alike or some other license approved by the Open |
| 11 |
> Source Initiative (OSI). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If developer commits changes directly to git without bugzilla being |
| 14 |
> used, this is OK, because out git repo is free and we control it. |
| 15 |
> But when we start to depend on github pull requests or similar |
| 16 |
> proprietary metadata, the Social Contract is violated. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't see how we're "depending" on github if we've already agreed |
| 19 |
that you can do the same thing without using it in the first place. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If I told you that I secretly push all my changes to github, then pull |
| 22 |
them to another machine, then push them to gentoo, would that be some |
| 23 |
kind of violation of the social contract. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Nobody is required to even look at github to do their job, and I don't |
| 26 |
believe that there is a proposal to require anybody to do so. If |
| 27 |
there were I think we could consider that separately from having an |
| 28 |
integration. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
People are using github TODAY to work on Gentoo. If it went away |
| 31 |
tomorrow, it really wouldn't affect us much. It is just an optional |
| 32 |
tool, and I don't see the proposal changing that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> IMO the best solution will be to deploy some free platform like |
| 35 |
> Gogs for code review, pull request and all other fashionable |
| 36 |
> features as was already suggested in this thread by Hasufell. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
You're welcome to do that, and if you need permission to get infra to |
| 39 |
host it you're welcome to ask us for it, assuming they're willing to |
| 40 |
host it for you (and if that is really the limitation then that is |
| 41 |
something we can try to tackle). Right now nobody is actually doing |
| 42 |
the work on that, and I don't see the value in holding up the project |
| 43 |
people are working on merely because they could be volunteering their |
| 44 |
time on something else instead. By that argument we'd still be using |
| 45 |
the 32-bit binary emul-* packages. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Ultimately we're a bit of a do-acracy and you get further with an |
| 48 |
implementation and an argument than you get with an argument alone. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Rich |
Archives