Il 30/09/2015 02:04, Jody Garnett ha scritto: > I think that the Github move is hazardous. Sure, it is easy, free > for open-source projects, and really really cool. Granted, it helps > a lot in getting fluid contributions to open-source projects. But > ... in two years, they may start shipping sponsors links at the end > of the Readme files, and in a moments notice you have to watch 20 > seconds ads before cloning. At this point, you will want to bail > out, only to find out that in fact you can not, because you can not > delete the project anymore, or the issue tracker database can not be > exported ... > > > Not much of a problem here, since git means each developer has a copy of > the whole project. I know we had the same story with SourceForge ...
I think the concerns about GH are real. I feel uneasy putting strategic pieces of infrastructure in the hands of a company is risky over the long term. It is true that we have a copy of the whole code base and history, but the scenarios suggested are possible and worrisome. All the best. -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
