GNOME.org
 

Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror

Hey there,

I can't help but notice that your mail provider, mailoo has a twitter
account to promote themselves: https://twitter.com/mailoopointorg

You should switch your email provider immediatly, as they are
promoting a centralized closed source service in their very frontpage!

2013/8/15 fr33domlover <fr33domlover mailoo org>:

Hey Jasper,

Excellent questions. I suggest module maintainers decide together on
each module, and other people can't control the mirroring in their name.


You can suggest all that you want, but until the day


Or just take the simple solution: Use a free software decentralized git
hosting. For example Gitorious or Gitlab. Gitlab seems to have many cool
features like Github and it's fully free software you can run on your
own server.

Does anyone have something against using these, instead of the
proprietary centralized alternative GitHub, which happens to be popular?

It's not my fault people use GitHub. It certainly doesn't mean I get
basic rights taken, just because people don't care enough about the
freedom of the software they use.



I refuse to endorse Github in any way, on the grounds of it being
partially proprietary and centralized. Can anything make more sense than
this? Isn't software freedom our basics?


On ה', 2013-08-15 at 08:37 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:




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
        git.gnome.org. 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
        https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list



--
  Jasper




_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list




-- 
Cheers,
Alberto Ruiz
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]