Am Sonntag, den 19.01.2020, 07:20 +0100 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > > While that may be true, there are already GNU projects using GitHub > > as their host, for example gnucash and gnuradio. > > Gnucash uses github as a mirror only, see > > https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git#code.gnucash.org > > But gnuradio admittedly uses github. I'm 100% sure that if RMS knew > that he would ask them immediately to move the source to a host that > is more GNU-compliant. > > However, there is nothing bad with mirroring at github, so it's OK if > LilyPond does the same.
Considering the start of this thread I think there should be some automatic way of keeping such a mirror up-to-date. It has happened more than once that people came to think this *is* the code base and try to patch it. > > > As it stands, GitLab would probably be a more viable candidate to > > look at than GitHub. > > I agree. IMHO, the main repository should stay at Savannah, though. One consideration that hasn't been mentioned this time is that GitHub's terms of service allow them to discontinue support for a given project for any reason without notice. However, I also count to the group of people who would strongly prefer a more convenient and more welcoming way of contributing. Not in terms of the review process. While having run into that wall more than once I agree that it's important to have that tedious kind of process. The main advantage of Github and its clones (Gitlab, Gitea) I see over the current process is a) that the code review is done on the actual code, if you will, and integrated with the comments, and b) that when a patch is accepted it can be simply merged (or squashed with/without merge commit). I'm always feeling insecure when basically redoing my patch before pushing to staging. Urs > > > Werner >