| 1 |
Hi Michał, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Just want to say that I agree with every point you made. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Since the discussion derailed away from the social contract, I'll try |
| 6 |
to address some other issues. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
1. Volunteer work. |
| 9 |
Anthony, I'm glad that you brought up volunteer work. |
| 10 |
I'm pretty sure Gentoo Infra team is extremely busy with all kinds of |
| 11 |
problems. The volunteers' time is arguably the most valuable resource |
| 12 |
Gentoo has. |
| 13 |
In my opinion we should do everything possible in order to save |
| 14 |
volunteers' time, especially when it comes to baseline work (such as |
| 15 |
maintaining and upgrading the infra services). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
From this perspective, It would be unreasonable to ask Gentoo Infra |
| 18 |
team to support an open-source solution because GitHub might change |
| 19 |
policy. |
| 20 |
GitHub policy change would only affect Gentoo short term. GitHub usage |
| 21 |
will bring a lot of value and will save volunteers' time long-term. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
2. Security |
| 24 |
Andrew, I am concerned about security as you do. I can see that from |
| 25 |
your point of view that Gentoo can not trust GitHub because it had |
| 26 |
some serious security issues in the past. |
| 27 |
I see that it might be misleading and give an impression that it's |
| 28 |
less secure than Gentoo infra, but here are some things which GitHub |
| 29 |
has and Gentoo does not: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
* a team dedicated to security issues, paid for their work, doing |
| 32 |
on-call rotation |
| 33 |
* 2 factor authentication which could be enforced |
| 34 |
* bug bounty program |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'm not sure if we can have all of it if we decide to use a FOSS |
| 37 |
system for code-review and pull requests. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, NP Hardass <np.hardass@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> On Feb 15, 2015 8:04 AM, "Andrew Savchenko" <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:15:53 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 45 |
>> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:10:53 -0800 |
| 46 |
>> > Daniel Campbell <contact@××××××××.us> wrote: |
| 47 |
>> > > The proprietary network stack can be gotten around. If the git |
| 48 |
>> > > provider is closed and goes down, the data is gone. |
| 49 |
>> > |
| 50 |
>> > Git does not work that way. Git is not like CVS or SVN. |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
>> Once more: github is not just a git repository, it is a platform, |
| 53 |
>> with trackers, review tools and so on. These can't be move |
| 54 |
>> somewhere else arbitrarily. |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
>> Best regards, |
| 57 |
>> Andrew Savchenko |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> This point is one a critical one to make, in my opinion. Github, if used, |
| 60 |
> should not, be used for anything but as a means for git mirroring and pull |
| 61 |
> requests, to facilitate code contribution. Every other aspect of Github: |
| 62 |
> wikis, issue tracker, etc, should not replace Gentoo infrastructure. |
| 63 |
> Github functionality should supplement, but not replace Gentoo |
| 64 |
> infrastructure so that we can remain autonomous and independent. |
Archives