My thoughts, sorry I'm unable to keep it short: I think the main repo should be self-hosted, how Alex is doing it now. PicoLisp was once hosted primarily by Google Code, it shut down, no reason why this should not happen to others. Dependency equals risks, and as we preach "control to the programmer" we should follow this through on our "community infrastructure" too. I'm happy to pay/sponsor.
I'm all for automatic mirroring of the self-hosted "master repository" to public repository services. Especially GitHub is quasi the monopoly hub for FOSS, without it the visibility of PicoLisp is very limited. Personally, I would prefer the main development not to happen there, even if it makes us look less a "serious project" compared to the mainstream FOSS stuff which often is completely and in all details visible on GitHub. We should not be interested in people who flock to us because of how we look. I'm thankful to the people who invested into this topic and created the existing mirrors. Why not mirror to as many repositories as PicoLisp community members want? Nothing speaks against this, as long as the workflow for contribution and the "master version" of PicoLisp is clear and transparent - this must be described clearly on every mirror repository. It is very important to keep this clear and straight, multiple branches of the community having their own forks of PicoLisp would be a disadvantage for all. The current way is to send and discuss contributions with Alex, ideally on IRC or mailing list. I don't think this should change - having many contributors working on one thing is not a benefit, many contributors are only a benefit if they work on diverse things, e.g. in the forms of "plugins" (libraries). Otherwise it becomes very hard to coordinate and manage, or development degenerates into "design by committee" which is the road to bloat and inconsistency. Nearly all good IT systems were designed by 1-2 persons max. The only question is how repository costs (financial) should be covered. Paying with money might often be a better way instead of paying with data and other immaterial catches. When the question about a certain repository arises, when it is really a worthwhile thing then it should be easy to convince some community members willing to sponsor, otherwise it is obviously seems not to be so important. - beneroth On 21.02.20 09:37, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > Sorry I started this digression, so the reply is just for informative purpose > and commentary and not intended as a will to pursue this particular > discussion :) I'm fine with GitHub or whatever. > >> On Feb 21, 2020, at 16:49, Mike <tankf33...@disroot.org> wrote: >> >>>> Someday all this must move to github.com/picolisp. >>>> @Mansur will take care. >>> Why not use sr.ht ? >>> It fully supports W3C accessibility guidelines. >> o) Because github.com is free > Not in the meaning of free software. > >> o) Better have one point of entry >> o) No one will pay for sr.ht account > If keeping $20/y is more important than supporting free software, then I > don't see the point spending time (=money) on picolisp, or on free software > in general. > > I'm paying $100/y to sr.ht because their aim is to create a totally free > service that supports free software. I've spent more on other pieces of free > software that I use for work and I'll gladly do it again for picolisp if that > contributes to having it run on mac one day. > >> (in general its not free) > "Notice: sr.ht is currently in alpha, and the quality of the service may > reflect that. As such, payment is currently optional, and only encouraged for > users who want to support the ongoing development of the site. For a summary > of the guarantees and limitations that the alpha entails, see this reference. > You may click here to continue without payment." > > JC -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
