@gilles I don't have a apache gitbox account, and nearly cannot do anything on gitbox. So it seems a mirror question to yours.
Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> 于 2020年7月23日周四 上午8:46写道： > 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 > >
