Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Add info about Bitbucket

[bill-auger]

it is a common suggestion on this list to generally add more hosts to
the list (including self-hosting options)

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2017-03/msg00004.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2017-03/msg00005.html

i think that many git hosts have been evaluated at least partially that
do not yet appear on the website for one reason or another - the
evaluation is done by volunteers so perhaps more volunteers could help
this along - we did an evaluation of our own at the peers community of
about 12 different VCS hosts/platforms when deciding how to increase the
GNU Ethical Repository ranking of notabug last year - i would be happy
to share our results as a basis for a wider scope of evaluations which i
would also like to see happen - surely 4 data points is not as helpful
as it could be, especially with some of the more popular hosts omitted

for now i can suggest that you may be interested in notabug
https://notabug.org/ which AFAIK has ranked the highest so far of those
that do not yet appear on the list with a 'B' rating which would place
it currently in second place behind savannah if it were listed

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-12/msg00006.html

another very fine option (the one that the peers community found most
desirable) is pagure https://pagure.io/ which is developed and
maintained by and for fedora - i dont recall if pagure has been
evaluated yet but from my experience it would also rate very well by the
GNU criteria - for example, debian has been debating between gitlab and
pagure as to which VCS hosting platform they should adopt in place of
their current FusionForge platform - which is just to say that debian
views it as a fine option for free software code hosting platform on par
with gitlab but it is completely off the radar on the GNU list

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature