2020-07-23 1:22 UTC+02:00, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org>: >> >> > It does not mean that a source distribution goes away. >> >> Nor did I mean that it would. >> I commented on the remark that one's own computer >> supposedly did not matter. >> > > Ah, then it was only the "(that one does not really count.)" that didn't > sit well with you. Misunderstood. > > > >> > We have been distributing binary builds for years. >> >> Officially, for convenience (but that's not the point). > > >> The point is that the distributed files do not come from >> CI builds, but from one performed on the RM's machine. >> > > I realize that a local build seems to be your gold standard.
Not mine. "Commons". > That's a very debatable point of view. There was no debate. And I would not say that Commons/Apache policy cannot change so that the release process is based entirely on CI-generated binaries. I don't see why you are putting those sideways conclusions into the simple issue of maintaining this place comfortable for everyone, not only for GitHub users. > > >> In this instance, I don't see why I should >> adapt to a flood of messages that was never discussed since >> I've been asked to subscribe to "issues@". >> > > The "flood of messages" could have been commits, people discussing issues > or asking questions. > > Deleting the messages should have been 10s max. > I wonder why you choose to be outraged instead. No, today's flood just pushed me to want to have something that's bothering for months, fixed. > Just put in perspective the time you spend on this thread already. Because people argue that the problem I see does not exist. > > >> Why? The CI/CD system should not matter. >> >> Sure. It's a convenience configured by each developer or team, >> as they see fit. >> So, why the original post recommending to favour GitHub? >> > > Probably because it is prefered by the original poster? Of course. So what. >> > Are we talking about changing that? >> >> The problem (of today namely) is that we don't talk. >> The process for using GitHub was not discussed either. >> > > You mean for the automatic dependency PRs? Yes. > or in general? Wrt to GH, no care whatsoever has been taken that some committers might not have a GH account. > > >> For me, anything that comes through GitHub is a burden, >> a loss of time. I can imagine that it is a boon for others >> but is this an Apache or GitHub project? >> > > I guess there are many people out there that like it as a tool. > Maybe you could explain why it's a burden for you? Sure: No GH account. >> > As long as we keep one egg (the sources) the other eggs don't really >> > matter. >> > Could you explain the problem with the basket? >> >> As said above, GitHub is inconvenient for me; thus any move >> that assumes otherwise, I don't agree with. >> > > Not sure you represent the majority, Of course not. Do you mean I should just go away because I don't have a GH account? > so maybe elaborate on > the inconvenience. Try to do something on GH without being logged in. Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
