Am Samstag, 19. September 2015, 11:53:22 CEST schrieb Vishesh Handa: > > So, if _you_ accept pull requests to a repo in the KDE official mirror, > > you > > are making decisions for others, and are making other people do things. > > No I'm not. > > Boud, you're shipping Krita on Windows. You're uploading them on the > KDE official website, you're thereby making me pay for Windows if I > want to test it and contribute to the project, you are making > decisions for others. > > Does this argument really hold?
I was not aware that I am forced to use the windows version of Krita. I just apt installed it and its just working fine. Also it doesn´t lock in any development resources to a specific proprietary platform. At least I don´t see how it can do so. So you can argue for github.com: But its opt-in and only for some repos? How do you make sure it doesn´t create pressure and expectancy that this will be switched on for all the other repos if pull requests are enabled in parts of the *official* KDE github.com mirror? I do not see the Windows version of Krita creating any pressure for people to switch to Windows. I certainly do not feel any pressure to do so. Thus I think its important to compare apples to apples and pears to pears. Pull requests and probably bug reports on github.com affect the development process. Providing a Windows version of Krita does not, despite adding some portability to the codebase. Thanks, -- Martin _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
