Hey there, I can't help but notice that your mail provider, mailoo has a twitter account to promote themselves: https://twitter.com/mailoopointorg
You should switch your email provider immediatly, as they are promoting a centralized closed source service in their very frontpage! 2013/8/15 fr33domlover <fr33domlo...@mailoo.org>: > Hey Jasper, > > Excellent questions. I suggest module maintainers decide together on > each module, and other people can't control the mirroring in their name. You can suggest all that you want, but until the day > Or just take the simple solution: Use a free software decentralized git > hosting. For example Gitorious or Gitlab. Gitlab seems to have many cool > features like Github and it's fully free software you can run on your > own server. > > Does anyone have something against using these, instead of the > proprietary centralized alternative GitHub, which happens to be popular? > > It's not my fault people use GitHub. It certainly doesn't mean I get > basic rights taken, just because people don't care enough about the > freedom of the software they use. > > > > I refuse to endorse Github in any way, on the grounds of it being > partially proprietary and centralized. Can anything make more sense than > this? Isn't software freedom our basics? > > > On ה', 2013-08-15 at 08:37 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, fr33domlover >> <fr33domlo...@mailoo.org> wrote: >> No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to >> people. >> >> Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I >> wouldn't >> want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think >> every >> maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their >> module. >> >> If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could >> maybe >> agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing >> and new >> modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it >> somewhat >> rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option >> to cancel >> it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer >> to switch >> it on. >> >> >> >> Who gets the say? What happens if there's two maintainers to a >> project? What if you've contributed code to GNOME that's under a >> different repository. What happens if someone manually mirrors your >> repository under their own name. >> >> >> It's not realistic to have an opt-out button for contributors. It's >> free software, and that doesn't change whether we put it on a >> proprietary platform or not. >> >> >> On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> > hi Luis; >> > >> > thanks for answering. >> > >> > On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina >> <liberfo...@freeside.fr> wrote: >> > > Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : >> > >>> Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an >> issue in >> > >>> itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been >> opt in from >> > >>> the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this >> case) shouldn't >> > >>> have to fight to get back what you have taken away from >> them. >> > >> >> > >> considering that this is a mirroring system of a >> distributed version >> > >> control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you >> still have >> > >> all your rights to the software you maintain and commit >> to, and you >> > >> still have the right to push your work to more than one >> repository. >> > >> care to elaborate a bit more on this? >> > > >> > > I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer >> may want as >> > > few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not >> need to poll >> > > to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or >> git.gnome.org. If extra >> > > clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and >> there's no >> > > process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means >> it's up to >> > > the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. >> > >> > as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being >> floated >> > around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. >> nor I >> > want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain >> directly — and >> > even then, I basically always say that if a patch is not on >> Bugzilla, >> > then it doesn't exist. >> > >> > the work that Alberto did, though, seem to be clear that: a) >> the >> > canonical place for submitting patches is Bugzilla, and b) >> the GitHub >> > clones are for mirroring only, so that people can easily >> create a >> > public fork on their own GitHub account when they wish to >> hack on >> > something. it is, essentially, a read-only mirror. as a >> maintainer, I >> > don't have a problem with exposing my code on multiple >> venues — that's >> > what I do already every day. >> > >> > ciao, >> > Emmanuele. >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> desktop-devel-list mailing list >> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list >> >> >> >> -- >> Jasper >> > > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
