If I may set aside the philosophical issues for the time being, I
think the better starting point is to ask "what do we need?"
Obviously, we need a git repository. Do we need an issue tracker? I
like the idea, but Ted has spoken against using anything except the
mailing list for communication. Are there other features we want? If
all we need is a git repo, then maybe moving off of Git{orious,Hub}
and putting the repo on fedorahosted is the way to go. Then there's
not much of a UI at all.
Is there a marketing aspect to be considered here? GitHub is pretty
visible, and it might help draw more people to copyleft-next if it's
hosted on GitHub.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Luis Villa <luis(a)tieguy.org> wrote:
(And I should have disclaimed that with a mention that I think it is
deeply problematic to use it anyway, but if we're going to evaluate
that question, evaluate it honestly with full understanding of how far
behind gitorious lags.)
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Luis Villa <luis(a)tieguy.org> wrote:
> It isn't just faster/more pleasant, it is more featureful- almost to
> the point of eliminating the (intended?) barrier to entry if you
> switched the document to markdown and used their built-in .md editor.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Richard Fontana
> <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 12:04 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
>>> I certainly agree the user interaction design of github is infinitely
>>> superior to gitorious. But being faster, prettier and easier to use do
>>> not in themselves seem like reasons to give up your freedom.
>>
>> True, although I don't see what freedom I'd be giving up. I already
>> use GitHub (as noted), including for copyleft-next itself but also for
>> a number of other things, so as long as that's true, even if I am
>> giving up freedom, I'd be giving it up anyway. So there's no actual
>> net loss of freedom (for me) in some immediate sense. I can see how
>> someone who doesn't like GitHub could object that I am supporting
>> GitHub's existence by using it, but again I already use GitHub anyway.
>>
>> As a parenthetical comment, with respect to Gitorious, we are all
>> taking it on faith that Gitorious publishes Corresponding Source for
>> the web frontend of
gitorious.org in the strict AGPLv3 licensee sense.
>>
>>> (Especially with git, where you can do almost everything you need to do
>>> through the git command, with no need for direct interaction with the
>>> web frontend of the server hosting the repository).
>>
>> Yes. I suppose the primary attractiveness of both Gitorious and GitHub
>> is the "I don't have to deal with hosting this" convenience. The
>> secondary attractiveness of GitHub, not present with Gitorious, is
>> that it is a mostly pleasant ("faster, prettier and easier to use" in
>> your words) web frontend. (Gitorious is almost beautiful in the
>> intensity of its ugliness.) I think then that the choice ought to be
>> self-hosting a publicly readable git repository vs. using GitHub.
>>
>> The tertiary attractiveness of GitHub, and perhaps the most important
>> issue, is just its popularity. I have imagined that if copyleft-next
>> is regarded as a GitHub-hosted project, it might attract more
>> attention, interest and participation (particularly from existing
>> GitHub users). I have some reason to believe this is true given the
>> initial experience of having used GitHub for hosting the project.
>>
>> - RF
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> copyleft-next mailing list
>> copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next
_______________________________________________
copyleft-next mailing list
copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next