On Nov 25, 2015, at 04:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >This means that while I still favour retaining a welcoming environment >for strict free software advocates over going with a fully proprietary >SaaS option for our workflow, I also think the available export >options from GitHub are already good enough to ensure we're covered >from an infrastructure risk management perspective.
Agreed that the risk of proprietary lock-in is fairly low, especially because we aren't moving our tracker, we're really just looking for git hosting and a nicer review/merge u/i. Of course, I still favor a free software solution that we can have some influence over, rather than a closed solution we're just a client of. However, I think Donald still intends to update PEP 481 to remove the recommendation of Phabricator, right? Also, PEP 481 doesn't mention how hosting is going to work. Under this PEP would Python be Just Another Project at github.com or would we have a branded git.python.org host? Cheers, -Barry
pgpgGcgBeR9dx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
