Gregory Casamento wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 19:40 Svetlana Tkachenko wrote: are required to continue using a savannah or a gitlab officially as github is nonfree and can't be added to official gnustep docs. > We have a mirror on github now. Once we are on Savannah it will be > bidirectional. We can call Savannah the master if that satisfies the FSF > political agenda. Additionally, the whole point of the previous discussion > was to underscore the point that we can commit from either place. > > Using Savannah is untenable due to its shortcomings as previously described > in this thread.
Apart from migration 'to git' taking 3 months and not being done right... Pull requests are a pain at Savannah. They have a patches section (https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?8217) to submit proposed changes without creating a fork-which-takes-ages-to-manually-approve, but it does not allow inline comments on the diff. Gregory Casamento wrote: > I have seen nothing from RMS saying we can't mention where we are mirrored in > GNUstep docs. If we did I would be shocked as this would restrict access to > free software. A freedom-respecting way to link a user to software which is only found on github is by providing them with a tarball or a working git mirror. Such mirror, while respecting the user's freedoms, may be less convenient. Gregory Casamento wrote: > I would like to hear directly from him on this subject. I would be glad to have an official response from FSF about this as well so I will perhaps forward a link to this thread to i...@fsf.org . Gregory Casamento wrote: > Another option is for us to consider this a fork. It would simplify a number > of things for us if that were the case. It is a fork only if it is different contents than the other copy. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev