Re: Savannah vs. Gitlab

[Ivan Vučica]

I will avoid responding to this thread further, and I will minimize the size of this response.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Svetlana A. Tkachenko <svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:

> I'd note that GitHub's code review tools are... wanting, and at the
> Dublin
> meeting we have generally agreed that use of any such code review tool
> would be optional.

I am glad you are paying attention to the code review facilities. I do
not understand the last statement about Dublin. Why optional?

There would probably be large, but unnecessary delays when reviewing contributions by current contributors.

 

Ivan Vučica wrote:
> > Continuing to mention GitHub in this thread is a waste of time.
>
>
> Svetlana, do you believe that statement projects an appropriate attitude?

Where we are considering moving to something new and official, it is
indeed a waste of time (if you find this phrase derogatory, please tell
me another, as in my native language it is not).

The point is: the decision is not really up to you or me.

I do find it curious that you believe you get to decide which topic is a waste of time for the entire list. :-)

I am, for example, choosing that my participation in this thread of discussion does not help.

> You are very restrictive in offering options: Subversion on Gna! which
> happens to be uni-directionally synced to github; or Git on Savannah.
>
> Do you truly consider those the only options?

This bit is my personal opinion.

So it is. :-)

Do consider: could there be other options, too? 

Perhaps some of these other options are also more appropriate for a project that has its own domain?