Yes, I agree with you. For me it looks like the 'no github' people have the following main arguments:
- github is company owned -> true, and your point about self-hosted gitlab may be a very good answer. The other thing is, even if it is a company, everybody still have their local copies of the code, and anyways, the value of github is probably far too tightly related to its relative openness / open -source friendly attitude for it to be thrown away at least in the foreseeable future. - we do not want to change the workflow to make it easy to a category of users, as there will always be another category asking for something else -> this is quite true. But at the same time, you want to choose the solution that makes most people (or a 'value-for-the-project-weighted' sum of the people) most happy. Here I think for the meteorite / casual users github gives most value, but it is a question to know how valuable these people actually are. On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:06 AM Ondřej Synáček <ondrejsyna...@fastmail.com> wrote: > > Yes it is interesting conversation indeed. The point made about > non-technical users not able to report bugs is a good one, although I > still think that can be solved by email as well (just a regular form and > the contents could get posted to this mailing list or different one). > > If people here are against proprietary Github, why not just use > self-hosted Gitlab solution? Personally I prefer Gitlab over GH but both > are good. > > On 22 May 2020, at 11:03, J Rt wrote: > > > I agree with you, and I suppose most of this discussion is becoming an > > interesting pros and cons weighting of different approaches :) I > > definitely think that everything is a question of tradeoffs, and the > > point made by 'pro github' participants here is that it is quite > > likely that github is de facto the dominant platform / way / > > methodology used in the open source world, with most users familiar to > > it, and that, therefore, having a github workflow may be the best way > > to engage a large(r) community. But I agree that it also comes with > > its downsides, to be weighted against the benefits it could bring. > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:57 AM Erazem Kokot <cont...@erazem.eu> > > wrote: > >> > >>> This is true, but at the same time, this is 'yet another method to > >>> learn', while nowadays a vast group of users are quite proficient > >>> and > >>> used to github and similar. Using something a la github would take > >>> away some entry barrier for most user IMO. > >> > >> Although I understand what you mean, I don't think just because new > >> users want the contributing process to be similar to what they > >> already > >> know, that projects would have to change their workflow to suit such > >> users. This is not a great way to learn for the user and pretty > >> pointless for the project, since if for example using Sourcehut or > >> Gitlab, users could still use the same argument of comfort with > >> Github > >> to try and move the project to Github. > >> > >> Projects shouldn't be forced to change their workflow to suit a small > >> minority of the contributors or possible future contributors. > >> If you were maintaining a project on Github, you wouldn't want users > >> submitting pull requests over email, so why would it be any better > >> the > >> other way around.