Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> writes: > > Agreed - it's really annoying to see everybody clamour for a > > centralised single point of of failure for git hosting. :-( > > Funny, this is why I don't get why people are so upset that some use > GitHub. Because of how Git works, the impact of lock-in is pretty much > limited to the non-repository stuff (issues and so forth).
Yet it is exactly those lock-in features that is the basis for arguments to put special effort into the centralised single point of failure. For example, the centralised proprietary GitHub “pull request” is presented as a reason to abandon a decentralised model: Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> writes: > An entirely fair point, however, I also think it's quite rude to > ignore the workflow they've chosen for contributions -- if they expect > PRs, it might disrupt their workflow and result in a much harder time > for them. So upstream have chosen a proprietary lock-in service for their workflow. That should not put any obligation on others to also submit to proprietary lock-in. -- \ “I went to a restaurant that serves ‘breakfast at any time’. So | `\ I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85y4lqqkfx....@benfinney.id.au
