* Jos van den Oever <[email protected]> [2015-08-18 09:20:27 +0200]:
> On Monday 17 August 2015 22:53:13 Valentin Rusu wrote: > > * Jos van den Oever <[email protected]> [2015-08-17 09:51:02 +0200]: > > > On Monday 17 August 2015 09:43:04 Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > > > > People even get pissed that we're not on github, github is, after all > > > > the, > > > > Official Git Place. They don't trust a git repo that's not on github... > > > > > > In real life, I very often have to correct people who conflate git and > > > github. Github was very successful in hijacking git. That's a big > > > achievement, but having one big player is not healthy for the ecosystem > > > and its inhabitants. > > > > > > The network effect is the big enabler here. GitHub, just like Facebook, > > > Windows, and more recently WhatsApp, grew because people felt they could > > > not avoid it. (I left out political examples ;-) > > > > Just my 2cents. Github is not in the same game as Windows from a > > political standpoint. Like the other apps/systems you mentioned, Github > > shares the simplicity, the ease of use. It's very easy to have a Github > > account, then simply fork that repo if something bothers you. You fix it > > for you, then eventually make the pull request. No fancy workflows or > > overengineered processes here. That's key to public adoption. That's the > > opposite of politics ;-) > > The nice features you describe are true of Git. Git is a free software > distributed system and GitHub makes this feature available as a closed hosted > service. > > Windows and GitHub are both closed products that cannot be changed by the > user. The user can choose to use GitHub or not use GitHub. When many people > use GitHub, the network effect is strong and many more people will feel > forced > to use GitHub. If KDE uses GitHub instead of its own infrastructure, KDE > forces people into an unfree system. Windows and Facebook are the same > problem: because so many people use it, others feel forced to join these bad > systems. GitHub might be pretty nice now, but there is no way to be sure it > will stay like this. I agree with this. > > The proposal by Martin is to only mirror KDE code on GitHub. That is not > nearly as harmful. Just for the record. I'm not for KDE sources move to Github. I didn't even thought about that ;-) However, it may be intelligent of our part to put the facility of push requests at our service. > Anyone can put KDE code on GitHub legally. So it's better > that KDE does it themselves, but we should be clear that the code is only a > mirror. Each respository should have a text at the top of README.md that > explains how people can join KDE [1]. It's a bit like throwing leaflets about > the good life into hostile territory. ;-) Good idea. As a matter of fact, such a README should be mandatory, as users must know where the original location is. -- Valentin Rusu IRC: valir _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
