31–40 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because Github is a closed-source company that can remove you, your repo, or your group at any time, for any reason. Committing to a hosted service is a bad idea (see: Sourceforge). That sort of thing isn't acceptable to a project like Gnome.
By committing to use GitHub, you’re only really committing to git. git supports multiple remotes for the purposes of mirroring — use that feature .
… and closed about a bazillion bugs I filed over the years in the process without (apparently) migrating them, too. … though I am pretty sure they left the bugs in the source intact.
… and closed about a bazillion bugs I filed over the years in the process without (apparently) migrating them, too. … though I am pretty sure they left the bugs in the source intact.
The CADT model strikes again!
https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
Makes me wish I had seen JWZ's writeup before spending so much of my time filing the damned things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because Github is a closed-source company that can remove you, your repo, or your group at any time, for any reason. Committing to a hosted service is a bad idea (see: Sourceforge). That sort of thing isn't acceptable to a project like Gnome.
By committing to use GitHub, you’re only really committing to git. git supports multiple remotes for the purposes of mirroring — use that feature .
Make sure you also tell your users not to use GitHub's comments, issue tracking, pull requests, release system, favorites/watches, or authentication.
So you're suggesting that the new home for the GNOME project's code be GitHub, without the GitHub.
Was Github ruled out because it's not free enough in spirit or are the Gnome folks just wanting to run things on-prem?
Probably because Github is a closed-source company that can remove you, your repo, or your group at any time, for any reason. Committing to a hosted service is a bad idea (see: Sourceforge). That sort of thing isn't acceptable to a project like Gnome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By committing to use GitHub, you’re only really committing to git. git supports multiple remotes for the purposes of mirroring — use that feature .
> you’re only really committing to git You don't use github just for git. You use it for issue tracking, pull requests and code review, CI hooks, wiki, github pages, kanban boards, bot integration, and so on. That's all stuff that locks you in to Github, and is non-trivial to migrate to another provider.
Well, some people do. I don't, apparently you don't, probably most people don't. But you could and some people do. I've seen a few projects on github with notes to the effect of "don't bother submitting issues/PRs here, do it through our [mailing list/etc]"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really that hard to write a little script to copy the issues over? Github has an exceptional API.
As others have pointed out, this is Gitlab. When it comes to github, they previously helped me transitioning a bugzilla into github issues, but it doesn't look like they do this anymore. Back then, I managed to get approval from all our contributors/issue authors so that their individual bugs and comments would show up as their individual bugs and comments, as well as retaining issue numbers. This is the code for it,…
https://gist.github.com/jonmagic/5282384165e0f86ef105
But it doesn't let you change ownership of issues or comments; everything appears as created by the importing user.
Was Github ruled out because it's not free enough in spirit or are the Gnome folks just wanting to run things on-prem?
"GitHub is not Free Software, of course, which makes it unacceptable to many in the GNOME community."
Unrelated, but GitLab has a pretty slick cookie notice. Tells you exactly what they're doing and lets you opt out of non-essentials.