>I don't really want to put *all* my eggs on github.
I agree that GitHub is a business and businesses are not always in a good shape
and are not forever in the best case. Specifically, many projects have had a
lesson from SourceForge "developments" in the recent few years.
Besides that, where a project is hosted does not matter as much as if it has
working backups (in this scope git provides a very convenient means to backup
its own repositories). Hosting hardware and software just fail from time to
time, whether the infrastructure is your own or sponsored by somebody else.
So the problem is to let GitHub do its good things to tcpdump yet to protect
from the bad ones. To me it seems that for the next few years the best balance
between survivability and convenience would be in continuing to use both GitHub
and bpf.tcpdump.org, but with one important change. The changes should normally
be committed to GitHub instance only, as that's currently the environment that
is most convenient for contributors of varying levels of experience. Then
bpf.tcpdump.org would not experience auto-merging difficulties any more and
with the two repositories being 100% identical the read-only choice between the
two will become again purely theoretical and a matter of taste. A weekly backup
of bpf.tcpdump.org on top of that will bring a complete peace of mind.
Does that sound reasonable?
--
Denis Ovsienko
_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
