On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:39 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Julien Rioux <[email protected]> writes: > > > The current hosting situation isn't bad that we need to take such > > important actions with savannah. With github, we already have hosting, > > a platform for contribution and review comments, and relatively strong > > visibility, at no effort from us. > > Who is "we"? I for one am not going to agree to GitHub's quite invasive > usage conditions for their "free" offerings which include killing a > project for any reason they want to at any point of time, explicitly > citing bandwidth usage as one such reason. > > You're right, for contributing a patch and/or commenting through github, it's "we" as in "those that are bold enough to sign up on github". "We" also happily send patches or comments on the mailing list as usual; "we" as in "those that are bold enough to post on public mailing lists". It's still an added value that a non-empty set of people are happy with. > Now the situation is in theory not all that different with Savannah. > Except that Savannah does not serve stockholders but its users and Free > Software. When they find that there is a technical problem in > connection with serving a project, "pull the plug" will be way lower in > the list of remedies than with GitHub. > > Fortunately with git repos even if the hosting goes, the project's source code is still in hand, Regards, Julien
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
