On Saturday, September 19, 2015 16:34:59 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El Dissabte, 19 de setembre de 2015, a les 16:23:26, Teo Mrnjavac va escriure: > > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 13:04:55 David Edmundson wrote: > > > > > I was under the impression they were disabled by the options we had > > > > > selected. Unfortunately that is not the case. > > > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying on this. > > > > > > > > I hope they can still be disabled. > > > > > > > > They can't. I had spent some time looking before. Sorry. > > > > > > However, we have solid hard data that it's a non-issue. > > > > > > Gnome has been mirrored on github for nearly 2 years, in that time GTK > > > has > > > had a grand total of 4 pull requests over time. > > > Most others (gedit, cheese, epiphany) have had 0. > > > > > > Interestingly they have had literally hundreds of github "forks", which > > > implies it has led to sustantiable numbers of patches back using the > > > traditional methods > > > > > > I've made a wiki page, which says how to turn a pull request into a > > > reviewboard submission. > > > https://techbase.kde.org/Development/GithubMirror > > > > > > If we get any questions we can then just copy and paste that, and don't > > > need to spend any time explaining. Bam, done. > > > > Thank you David, for your get-things-done approach in this controversial > > and tense situation. It is really much easier to solve than it seems from > > all these threads. > > > > I'm personally in favor of letting projects decide whether to allow GitHub > > pull requests or not, but regardless of the final decision it is good to > > already have practical solutions like this techbase entry. > > > > I find it unfortunate that some long time KDE contributors feel that KDE > > goals are threatened by all this. I understand their concerns, but I > > assign > > those concerns a different priority score. In fact, the inflexible policy > > towards 3rd party (including proprietary) infrastructure and processes we > > have in KDE deters me from bringing some of my own (currently > > GitHub-hosted) work under the KDE umbrella, as this would hinder some very > > productive working relationships with our downstreams and potentially > > result in *less* free open source software being produced, deployed and > > used. > > That's something you have convinced yourself about, you don't have proof. >
This is not a repeatable experiment, of course I don't have science level proof. I even pointed out that my opinion stems from assigning different priority scores to the same concerns others have pointed out, concerns that I do recognize. Definitive proof could only be through hindsight after proceeding. The fact that you complain about the lack of proof is a bit baffling, as proof of the outcome for this kind of hypothetical scenario is something that no one can possibly produce without a crystal ball. This is a social, people-herding issue. The best I can give you is a maintainer's assessment, and that's what I wrote, based on the knowledge I have of said downstream relationships. You may agree or disagree, but I don't think it makes much sense to complain about lack of proof. Cheers, -- Teo Mrnjavac http://teom.org | [email protected] _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
