[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github
From:       Vishesh Handa <me () vhanda ! in>
Date:       2015-09-19 17:54:38
Message-ID: CAOPTMKDpM=sjVTrmMJEfOX65=WYakdRr-+m78SZ4bwQTpQONYQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Eike Hein <hein@kde.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/19/2015 06:57 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote:
>>>   The topology of 'project' is not a match to our repository
>>>   topology, which is incidental and an implementation detail.
>>>   It's not possible to cleanly turn GitHub on or off along
>>>   the - ever-shifting - social boundaries involved.
>>>
>>
>> I don't follow. And reviewboard will still be the primary source.
>
> Some of the pro-arguments have been "it's opt-in" and
> "you can ignore it if you want" in the context of
> "projects". But in reality the toggle is per-repository,
> and project != repository.

And in those cases it might not to be possible. I agree.

>  Plasma is comprised of many
> repositories. I maintain subfolders in plasma-desktop.git
> but not the whole of it. I can't opt out of GitHub for,
> say, the Task Manager if it's enabled for plasma-desktop.
>
> There's no way to ignore GitHub and maintain common owner-
> ship, really - for that reason and for the reason that a
> gimped GitHub presence is arguable worse than no presence
> (because it snubs rather than ignores an audience) the
> decision is IMHO between 'allow GitHub code review in
> general or don't'.
>

Are you seriously arguing that because certain projects are willing to
put in extra effort and appeal to an audience you don't care about,
you're now pressured to do something? If you don't care about Github,
then ignore the snubs.

Also the whole common ownership thing is possible with Github. An
organization can have multiple contributors, just as any other
repository can. Those people can push whatever they want.

>
> I'd like us to simply not pretend otherwise. Allowing GitHub
> affects everyone. Allowing GitHub in addition to our own
> infrastructure is fragmentation. Those are simply facts. The
> debate should be entirely about whether we want to live with
> that or not.
>

The fragmentation is going to occur to matter what. The current
solution proposed by others is to have a personal clone under your own
name. So I would have github.com/vhanda/baloo. This is so much worse.

> Your "But we also use Google Hangouts" argument is much more
> relevant. In fact, as someone who doesn't use Google Hangouts
> and has repeatedly been pressured into using it or missed out
> on opportunities to participate in decisions because of it,
> I can tell you exactly what the downsides are to trying to
> ignore the fragmentation that it constitutes.
>

So what's your solution? Make everyone use only approved free
software? And if they don't?

>> Just as if someone project is shipping Windows binaries, one cannot
>> step up and maintain that project. Big deal! There are always
>> differences.
>
> Can we retire the Windows argument though? Project input !=
> project output.
>

No. Project output is as important as project input.

--
Vishesh Handa
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]