> On Nov 30, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 1. I strongly believe that the long term sustainability of the overall >> open source community requires the availability and use of open source >> infrastructure. > > I concur. This article <URL:http://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html> > makes the arguments well, IMO. > >> 2. I also feel that this proposal is far too cavalier in not even >> discussing the possibility of helping out the Mercurial team […] we'd >> prefer to switch to something else entirely rather than organising a >> sprint with them at PyCon to help ensure that our existing Mercurial >> based infrastructure is approachable for git & GitHub users? > > Exactly. For such a core tool, instead of pushing proprietary platforms > at the expense of software freedom, the sensible strategy for a project > (Python) that hopes to be around in the long term is to use and improve > the free software platforms.
I think there is a big difference here between using a closed source VCS or compiler and using a closed source code host. Namely in that the protocol is defined by git so switching from one host to another is easy. It’s akin to saying that if we chose to run the PyPI services on a Windows machine that it is somehow makes it less-free even though we could have chosen to run it on a “free” OS and we weren’t doing much, if anything, to tie us to that particular OS. If it makes people feel better we can continue to support the existing mechanisms of contribution, then people can choose between interacting with a “non free” host and “free” tooling. I suspect most people will choose the “non-free” tooling. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
