On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Matt Wagner wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:17:59PM +0200, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
>
> At this point I don't really mind our current process, but I understand
> that it may be daunting for the newcomers, and I do like the proposals
> in the article.
As someone who was until recently a "newcomer," I didn't find the
process that daunting. And while we absolutely need to be welcoming to
newcomers, I don't think "easy for new people to learn" should be the
primary feature of our entire workflow.
I agree with it not being the primary consideration, but I'm hopeful that it remain
*a* consideration.
That said, I'm still in favor of switching. I've used GitHub
on non-work
projects here and there, and have grown fond of it. But for me it's that
I find GitHub slightly easier to use and slightly, well, shinier than
what we have now. I'm not sure that's a compelling reason to switch.
I think this rolls right into what is talked about above in terms of what kind of
impression it makes on a newcomer and/or potential participant; be they contributor, user,
or journalist. For better or for worse, when you develop out in the open and endeavor to
build a community, the tools aren't just functional but offer another facet of the
public face of the project. Easier to use and shinier could prove to be positive
qualities from that perspective.
> * Github is proprietary and people may have issues with that.
Since git
> itself is open, I don't think we're risking much in terms of a lock-in.
> If it works better than the Free alternatives, it's okay with me.
I'm not too bothered that the source code to GitHub is proprietary.
Sure, I wish it wasn't, but it wouldn't keep me up at nights.
What *does* concern me a little is that I'm not sure some of the things
they implement would be transferable if we left GitHub. For example,
the code reviews:
https://github.com/features/projects/codereview
It's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
-steve