Could you clarify why we do not get most of this with hosting a mirror there? Git is "allegedly" rather good with merging commits no matter where the commits come from, and Github does not seem to be discriminating there either.
Note, to me, tools GH offers are just okay. I am not too impressed by the bug tracker, and code review tools are even less impressive. And only some of this feeling is subject to de gustibus... This doesn't mean we should not use them, or that we won't benefit from having a continuously, automatically, bidirectionally synced and merged mirrors which would be the repositories integrated with these tools. On Fri, Dec 4, 2015, 15:24 David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 Dec 2015, at 09:55, Ivan Vučica <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Primary hosting on Github? *shrug* there are no strong benefits, I > think, and sufficient number of people would be happier if we hosted > elsewhere. > > I strongly disagree with this. The benefits for collaboration from being > able to easily see who has forked your repo, to post comments on their code > asking about upstreaming, and so on are huge. > > GitHub is far more than just a hosting service (though one that has an > issue tracker that integrates tightly with the revision control system, and > a decent code review system), it’s also a social platform and that’s where > the majority of its value lies. > > David > > -- Sent from my Difference Engine > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
