On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:08:21PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very > > sad to witness this once again. > > > > I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting > contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem is that it > is proprietary, which creates division, and could potentially create > problems down the road (no way to know - the sorts of things that can > happen anytime you depend on proprietary software). If github were to go down, all you would have to do is use a command similar to the one given in the first message of this thread to switch upstream to another location. I would argue that there really isn't a hard dependency on github in the same way there would be if they were using some centralized vcs such as svn.
I think this is a pretty weak argument for systems that use distributed vcs's like git. > > I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will > > merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the > > merges properly. > > > > So, first, THANK YOU! If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all packages from the tree that have their upstream on github? William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
