[Members] source control

bear bear42 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 18:37:12 UTC 2013


Top posting this just to make sure it's seen by everyone in the
conversation...

I'm going to cut to the chase on this conversation as I think both sides
have very valid points and that we can solve this with some intelligently
designed tech.

So... I'm going to review our current Git setup on the XSF server and then
set up the commit hooks and processes to actively mirror the content to
GitHub.  Next I will then research and report on a way to handle
submissions and pull-requests from GitHub to our repo - with the goal to
make Peter's life less stressful and to increase the amount of visibility
to the repo.

Any objections?


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>wrote:

>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, and I personally couldn't care less which of the repos gets to be
> >> called "official", as long as both allow contribution directly.
> >>
> >>
> >> IMO, whether to allow contributions to come via some non-XSF hosted
> repo is
> >> a policy decision, best left to the board.
> >>
> >> -- Kurt
> >
> > This is a technical decision, and not a business decision.
>
> What ownership and control we should have over the repo IS a business
> decision, not a technical decision.  I argue that there's actually a policy
> decision here to be made, as I don't believe the board ever consider before
> the impacts of outsource the git repo upon our IPR and other existing
> policies.   With a policy decision made (or they stating that no policy
> decision is needed), then the Executive Director can execute with support
> from the technical teams.  I say Executive Director here as I suspect he's
> the only non-board member actually authorized to bind the XSF into
> agreement with the third party git repo provider.
>
> I would suggest that those who do make commits to the current git repo
> actually review the github terms of service to see if they are willing to
> bind themselves (and possibly their employer) to the agreement.  I did and
> I found I couldn't.  I've advised the Peter and the board of this.
>
> -- Kurt
>
> >
> > --
> > Waqas Hussain
>
>


-- 
Bear

bear at xmpp.org (email)
bear42 at gmail.com (xmpp, email)
bear at code-bear.com (xmpp, email)
http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog)

PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20130222/ff42a4de/attachment.html>


More information about the Members mailing list