Ok Jim, it seems we are on one line here. Sorry to bother but I wanted to make sure. In my understanding the moving was only about the part already on github. I'll hold my peace for a while unless we are actually talking about the technical implementation of a convenient developer workflow again ;)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > As Sam indicated, there was a lot of hush-and-rush about all > this, with little communicated and much assumed. It appears that > now things are more well known and the matters are being > addressed. But for the record, yes, there was the impression > and (mis)understanding that "moving" to GH was indeed what > was desired and "demanded". > > My post was in direct response to Sebastien's query, as was hopefully > indicated by including that paragraph in my post. > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and > >> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular) > >> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub > >> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a > Cloud > >> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board. > >>> > >> > >> I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if > >> any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack? > >> > >> I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were > >> going to jump off a roof, would you too?" :) :) > >> > >> Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than > >> just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will > >> remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it. > >> > >> Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as > >> (still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to > >> portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators. > >> People passionate about open source are seriously pushing > >> that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source, > >> proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft" > >> or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's > >> called "Github" well, that's OK then. > >> > >> Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who > >> are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties > >> for some (perceived) additional security. > >> > >> I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy > >> grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should > >> be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook, > >> line and sinker. > > > > > > Jim, you sound like someone gave you the impression that they didn't > want > > the wip-us repo to be the primary source of cloudstack code any more. I > > wonder who and how? I do not care if IBM, Oracle or Microsoft would host > > mirrors or clones or forks or whatever. On the contrary, it would be an > > honour. I am also very pleased to be able to have a fork on github. > Besides > > all that, how would you plea that the Apache foundation isn't trying to > > bind 'em all with a single repository like all the commercial > governments, > > as well? As a libertarian I don't trust 'not for profit' any more then > any > > other business objective. The writing above is yet another sound from the > > board that makes me believe there is discontent and I don't understand. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Daan > > -- Daan
