Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, fr33domlover <fr33domlover mailoo org> wrote:
No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to people.

Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I wouldn't
want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think every
maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their module.

If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could maybe
agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing and new
modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it somewhat
rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option to cancel
it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer to switch
it on.

Who gets the say? What happens if there's two maintainers to a project? What if you've contributed code to GNOME that's under a different repository. What happens if someone manually mirrors your repository under their own name.

It's not realistic to have an opt-out button for contributors. It's free software, and that doesn't change whether we put it on a proprietary platform or not.
On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi Luis;
> thanks for answering.
> On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina <liberforce freeside fr> wrote:
> > Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit :
> >>> Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in
> >>> itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from
> >>> the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't
> >>> have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them.
> >>
> >> considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version
> >> control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have
> >> all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you
> >> still have the right to push your work to more than one repository.
> >> care to elaborate a bit more on this?
> >
> > I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as
> > few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll
> > to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or If extra
> > clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no
> > process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to
> > the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones.
> as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being floated
> around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. nor I
> want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain directly — and
> even then, I basically always say that if a patch is not on Bugzilla,
> then it doesn't exist.
> the work that Alberto did, though, seem to be clear that: a) the
> canonical place for submitting patches is Bugzilla, and b) the GitHub
> clones are for mirroring only, so that people can easily create a
> public fork on their own GitHub account when they wish to hack on
> something. it is, essentially, a read-only mirror. as a maintainer, I
> don't have a problem with exposing my code on multiple venues — that's
> what I do already every day.
> ciao,
>  Emmanuele.

desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org


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