Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> Just a reminder: nobody's talking about replacing everything with
> web-based interfaces.  I think that the discussion is about providing
> both web-based and other interfaces.
>
> And i know at least one potential serious contributor that is driven
> away by complicated interfaces.  And he seemed to quite like GitHub
> workflow after trying it.

But "GitHub workflow" is for getting something done in Git.  It does not
fit any better into our split Google-issue/Rietveld system than using
Git does.

If we went to a naked Git workflow, like projects as Git or Linux do, he
could better work with GitHub than he can do now.

Now I am against moving our Google/Rietveld setup to GitHub, which is
not just a proprietary platform but also has usage conditions (including
reserving the right of deleting all your repositories and data without
warning at a whim) that are not suitable for relying on.

That does not mean that web tools are out of the question: what is the
problem here is not as much the use of a web tool, but rather the use of
the _Service_ of GitHub.

If you take a look at things like Gitorious, we have the situation that
we again have a basically private hosting service, but independently we
also have an AGPLd software behind it.  That means that if we evaluated
that software and found it would meet our purposes better than existing
solutions, there is a reasonable chance that we can convince Savannah to
host it.

That's not an option that we have for GitHub as far as I can see.

-- 
David Kastrup