On 15 April 2016 at 14:51, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:21:22PM +0200, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>
>> Finally, GitHub, wins: feature-wise, marketing-wise, with 'zero' maintenance
>> - most, if not all, of our projects already prefer GitHub.
>
> 1. marketing wasn't in your 10 poi
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:21:22PM +0200, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> On 15 April 2016 at 09:52, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> > What would you want from an OSGeo Git Service ?
>
> My 10 features are:
>
> 1. LDAP (log in with OSGeo User ID or OpenID)
> 2. Private repositories
> 3. Organizations (e.g./GDA
On 15 April 2016 at 09:52, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> What would you want from an OSGeo Git Service ?
My 10 features are:
1. LDAP (log in with OSGeo User ID or OpenID)
2. Private repositories
3. Organizations (e.g./GDAL)
4. User space (fork /GDAL/gdal into /mloskot/gdal, also private fork)
5. Issu
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:15:34PM +, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I think some kind of bridge to github is high on the list (viewing it more
> as an outreach marketing concern than anything). In my experience projects
> that are not officially on github get lots of unofficial forks - but that
> could
I think some kind of bridge to github is high on the list (viewing it more
as an outreach marketing concern than anything). In my experience projects
that are not officially on github get lots of unofficial forks - but that
could depend on which are of the world you are in?
I am very interested in
Following the "recent" discussion [1] about OSGeo infrastructure
to provide modern software code management services, I drafted a features
comparison table [2] on the wiki to help with determining which packages
would better serve the needs of OSGeo projects.
If you have any specific feature you'd
