From kde-scm-interest  Tue May 11 22:49:30 2010
From: Jeff Mitchell <mitchell () kde ! org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:49:30 +0000
To: kde-scm-interest
Subject: Re: [Kde-scm-interest] Alternate Git options
Message-Id: <4BE9DEFA.8090309 () kde ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-scm-interest&m=127361817419788
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============1981432274=="

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--===============1981432274==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enigD592D5A3CD8C8D7F676599A7"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigD592D5A3CD8C8D7F676599A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 05/11/2010 04:03 PM, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Tuesday 11. May 2010 21.29.47 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> Merge requests:
>> Nothing but GitHub and Gitorious currently handle merge requests per s=
e,
>> but Reviewboard's git handling is getting better.
>=20
> pure git based merge requests are essential for KDE growing in my not s=
o humble=20
> opinion.

Define "pure git-based merge requests". GitHub and Gitorious don't do
anything you can't do in pure git; Gitorious tells you how to check out
the branch and merge in commits, and GitHub requires little action on
your part but under the hood just cherry-picks patches over for you
(which does some ugly things to history, I might add). So I'm not sure
what you mean by "pure git-based merge requests", as I don't think
either of these would qualify.

> What about github?
> If they can support a git.kde.org a transition to something better (i.e=
=2E Free=20
> (as in, speech)) can be almost painless.

GitHub has a host-it-yourself-option. I think they call it github:fw or
something, for "firewall", designed for organizations to put behind
their firewall. I know that the licensing is massively expensive
(>$1k/user), more so even than SourceForge/TeamForge, although it may or
may not be shared source (I believe most of their code is Ruby, after all=
).

Regardless, unless it's open-source and they donate millions of dollars
worth of licenses to us, it's a no-go.

--Jeff


--------------enigD592D5A3CD8C8D7F676599A7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvp3voACgkQANYdqNCuGCUwrgCgp7LYpXFKbx0kG730gLgZEftp
4IwAoI0fQszg8SOsNuLXWzGt09Y1Q1US
=1wD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigD592D5A3CD8C8D7F676599A7--

--===============1981432274==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Kde-scm-interest mailing list
Kde-scm-interest@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest

--===============1981432274==--