On 3 March 2013 18:45, Andreas Jung <li...@zopyx.com> wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> yuppie wrote:
> >
> >> You do realise it's:
> >>
> >> a) free (for us) b) decentralised
> >
> > What do you mean by "it"? What by "free"? What is "decentralised"?

I mean, there's no tangible cost (financial or otherwise) of using GitHub;
and git's architecture pretty much ensures that there's no lock-in
(especially if mirroring is set up).

> > Why do your points a) and b) make supporting GitHub Inc. a good
> > decision?

I don't see it as supporting GitHub. I see it as using a service that is
free to us and rather good. It saves resources (e.g. the time spent
managing svn.zope.org; the cost of bandwidth) that can be better spent
elsewhere (e.g. working on Zope/CMF). It helps make it easier for others to
contribute, because so many people already know how to use GitHub.

> > GitHub Inc. is too successful. It already has too much power. That's
> > not good for the open source community.


>  We all value your contributions to Zope and CMF __very much__ but is it
> really necessary being that fundamental?

I'd echo that sentiment (especially the first part).

What's the worst that could happen? GitHub goes belly-up and we starting
using a different remote in our repos? GitHub tries to violate the license
terms of our software somehow (that seems very unlikely)?

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to