[kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

On 18 September 2015 at 22:14, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
> On Friday, September 18, 2015 9:52:46 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> On 18 September 2015 at 21:16, Marco Martin <notmart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Sune Vuorela <nospam at vuorela.dk> wrote:
>> >>> 2. Regarding the issues/pull requests - nobody agreed/disagreed to my
>> >>> proposal. Is anyone against an *opt-in* possibility of enabling Issues
>> >>> and/or Pull Requests for a given mirrored repo? Opt-in by maintainer of
>> >>> the patches. We can easily draft a policy if someone is afraid.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. I'm against. And I'm also against mirroring on github, but I didn't
>> >> voice my opinion by that because it was said that issues and pull
>> >> requests are not to be enabled.
>> >
>> > yes, i'm not willing to deal with pull requests from github as well.
>> >
>> > I don't like being on github, but if everybody likes to have a copy
>> > here that's fine, until it's a copy and i don't have to use it.
>>
>> You don't have to use pull requests, as I said: opt-in feature of a repo.
>>
>> I won't use it too in my workflow. Treat it as an exception: some folks in
>> KDE friendly and openly accept patches sent by email and _friendly_
>> encourage that next time for non-trivial work it will be better to use
>> official tools.
>>
>> @Sune you're from KDE but for example packagers often use email to
>> send "fix build" patches.
>>
>> Nobody responded to this to so I'll repeat: I won't reject early
>> attempts of people wanting to contribute so if I have to I'll use
>> personal forks on github and any other places where I actually can
>> meet contributors.
>>
>> Then the Issues thing is another matter: I'd appreciate that you read
>> - I am not proposing to use it as alternative bugzilla (which is
>> terrible BTW) but to solve integration issue I am having. Hopefully it
>> will be sorted more cleanly one day.
>>
>> PS: We're also supporting "nonstandard" approach: patches in bugzilla
>> (that can never be marked as rejected if are invalid), shouldn't this
>> feature be blocked?
>
> This is completely different. Bugzilla is free software and if we move patch
> review to bugzilla (GNOME does that) we have not moved to a proprietary
> platform.
>
> I must say I'm uneasy with the thought of allowing pull requests - even as an
> exception. Seeing this raised on the day the mirroring started makes me sad
> that I initiated the whole thing.
>
> So I join Sune, Eike and Marco: "Free software needs free tools, no
> proprietary pull requests for KDE development!"

I don't argue with that it needs free tools. Of course we need to be
able to operate as usual when the nonfree tools disappear.

I do argue with 'Free software needs to reject nonfree tools even at
the cost of alienating most of the non-KDE world'. Disclaimer: unlike
rms I don't have access to secretary who browser the internet for me.
And I still use GSM.

It comes down to the question if one acts more inclusive or exclusive.

For you: that's like 'reject closed-source drivers for kwin even if I
won't be able to use cool kwin features' type of rejection.

I wouldn't have problem if presence on github would be completely
opt-in as Friedrich suggested, based on subprojects' requests. It
would also help to sort out the issue with some obsolete repos.
Yesterday just dying in project.kde.org playgrounds and today
everything is mirrored on github. Or is it too late?

-- 
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek

KDE:
: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators
: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org
Calligra Suite:
: A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
Kexi:
: A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
Qt Certified Specialist:
: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek