[Members] source control

[jehan at zemarmot.net]

Hi,

Le 2013-02-16 21:36, Remko Tronçon a écrit :
> On 15 February 2013 21:14, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>> These services should, I feel, remain within the XSF's control.
>
> I'm also with Dave on this one. Our core business (the XEPs) should
> fully remain under our control. (and I think most software
> companies/organisations think the same way about their source code, 
> or
> any core data they have).

I also agree with Dave and Remko. I also think that this is our role.

> I'm not an XSF admin, so I shouldn't talk, but managing the Git repos
> doesn't sound like the hardest thing to maintain ourselves. As for
> contributions, there are ways to make the contribution flow easier
> (even easier than Github), with varying requirements of extra
> admin/resources/software/scripting/...

I agree. Even with simply requiring contributors to make a "git 
format-patch origin/master", then sending it on the mailing list. Then 
the maintainer (or authorized contributors with write access) just have 
to "git apply" (which requires no extra scripting).

git made outside contribution so easy, why complicate it? People even 
keep the authorship of their patch! github did no more than making some 
web make-up around git commands. And personally I find it so much easier 
to apply a patch with command line (rather than forcing the user to do 
something, normally done in 2 seconds on command line, now in a web 
interface, with several steps, which requires logging-in, searching, 
clicking, loading and waiting). Also I find it so annoying an 
organization which requires you to have a github account to contribute 
(of course we can still allow patch through emails, but having a github 
central point basically says people "this is our recommended 
contribution method).

So yes, I agree with NOT using github.
But as said Remko above, I am not a XSF admin. So I understand if 
admins have the finale words.

Jehan

>
> cheers,
> Remko