Please note that what I wrote was just a suggestion to prevent future
problems. I don't mean to impose anything. If you think using GitHub,
GitLab or whatever git host available would be a good solution, that's
absolutely fine by me. I use GitHub myself. It was just a small remark
to avoid falling in the trap of having a lot of dependencies on
vendor-specific features that might just vanish (like what happened with
Sourceforge, Google Code etc.).
No problem, I agree that it's important to avoid vendor lock-in.
And, sure, the CHICKEN bug tracker, mailing lists, wiki and IRC channel
can be used for CHICKEN-related stuff.
+1
Currently we don't have e-mail notifications. Our use-case is very
modest for today's standards of fanciness. Our git traffic is very low.
We basically use the mailing lists to communicate. It's a very simple
setup -- as it must be, otherwise we wouldn't be able to maintain it.
Given:
- a GitHub organization would be preferred for ease of maintenance by
Dan and Vasilij who have written some of the Chicken Emacs support so far
- you and I don't object to GH
- nobody else has said anything
- a decision seems hard to make
should we just make a `chicken-tools` org on GitHub? That would let us
resolve the current stagnation in maintaining these packages, and if we
disable the wikis and issue trackers we can move the repos to another
host later on.
