Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> in the meantime i saw Graham's email, so just a short reply:
>
> 2013/9/16 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> [github] can cause tool lock-in and so on,
>
> every tool can.  In this case, i think that the degree of lock-in is
> small and probably negligible (as Graham said, git repositories are
> portable).
>
> Note that i'm *not* proposing to move LilyPond development to Github.
> I just want to organize stuff that's already there, and give LilyPond
> wide exposure by hosting a "semi-official" repository clone there.
>
>> With Savannah, we have system
>> administrators sympathetic to our cause rather than their business
>> model.  And the LilyPond project is quite beyond a "don't care" size for
>> them.
>
> That's good, and i'm not saying that we should abandon Savannah!
>
> I want LilyPond to be present on Github because it's a very widely
> known platform

What for?  If people want to fork LilyPond, why should we roll out the
red carpet for them?  They are free to do it on their own.

> (according to Wikipedia, it's two orders of magnitude more popular
> than Savannah:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_software_hosting_facilities#Popularity).

"popular" meaning used.  Not much of a surprise here: Savannah is not a
free-for-all offering.  You have to actually apply, and you have to meet
criteria.  More so if we are talking about a GNU project, of course, but
that's not a condition for hosting.

Savannah is not a mainstream hoster.  It's a hosting service aligned
with the GNU project.

> Together with ease of use mentioned by Graham this can result in more
> contributors joining Lily development.

You mean, more non-contributors forking LilyPond Development.  It is
already easy to clone your own Git repository from Savannah.  Anybody
can set up a clone of LilyPond anywhere, including on GitHub.

-- 
David Kastrup