But still, “meteorite” users would probably have to sign up for
account to post a Gitlab issue. If we’re debating this one, it’s the
friction of signing up for mailing list vs. signing up for Gitlab
account.
I think signing up for mailing list is easier and less frictionless.
Not sure if Gitlab allows for anonymous issue submission. They do have
API though so you could still have a form somewhere that would put it
inside Gitlab.
On 22 May 2020, at 11:14, J Rt wrote:
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
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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.
