I will avoid responding to this thread further, and I will minimize the size of this response.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Svetlana A. Tkachenko < [email protected]> wrote: > > I'd note that GitHub's code review tools are... wanting, and at the > > Dublin > > meeting we have generally agreed that use of any such code review tool > > would be optional. > > I am glad you are paying attention to the code review facilities. I do > not understand the last statement about Dublin. Why optional? > There would probably be large, but unnecessary delays when reviewing contributions by current contributors. > > Ivan Vučica wrote: > > > Continuing to mention GitHub in this thread is a waste of time. > > > > > > Svetlana, do you believe that statement projects an appropriate attitude? > > Where we are considering moving to something new and official, it is > indeed a waste of time (if you find this phrase derogatory, please tell > me another, as in my native language it is not). > The point is: the decision is not really up to you or me. I do find it curious that you believe you get to decide which topic is a waste of time for the entire list. :-) I am, for example, choosing that my participation in this thread of discussion does not help. > You are very restrictive in offering options: Subversion on Gna! which > > happens to be uni-directionally synced to github; or Git on Savannah. > > > > Do you truly consider those the only options? > > This bit is my personal opinion. > So it is. :-) Do consider: could there be other options, too? Perhaps some of these other options are also more appropriate for a project that has its own domain?
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
