Re: github mirror of lilypond?

[David Kastrup]

Erlend Aasland <address@hidden> writes:

> (Sorry for the messed up indent/quote level. Apple Mail is a pain in
> the butt sometimes.)

The previous one had an indiscriminate plain text and a properly
indented HTML variant.  This one has only an indiscriminate plain text.
Make no mistake: I prefer plain text.  But...

I decided to delete the following quoted plain text (it's useless
anyway) and append a rendition of the indented HTML text.

Thus spake Erlend:

        On 19 Jan 2020, at 18:19, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
        What is of concern is the whole metadata about issues and their
        handling and resolution, the stuff you propose moving to GitHub
        in the first place.

    Just for the record; I’m not suggesting GitHub as the one and only
    alternative. I think I mentioned some of the GH alternatives in my
    original email, IIRC.

    I understand the concern about metadata and such, but a lot of that
    information is already present in the commits (both as metadata in
    the commits and as commit messages), so I guess you’ve already put
    uncomfortably much information in there already…

        The current use of Savannah hosting for that reason is not a
        whole lot more than a vote of confidence to GNU/FSF/Stallman
        (which at the current point of time are more separate entities
        than they historically were) but not of practical importance.

    True.

        Our current ties to Google (via Rietveld) and SourceForge (for
        Allura/issue tracking) are practically speaking more tenuous to
        replace.  Of course they deserve replacing, but doing so by
        picking GitHub would definitely be a much more invasive step for
        the project than just entertaining a Git mirror.

    True.

        Make no mistake: our current dependencies in that regard are of
        lukewarm quality concerning the "Free Software" regard and are a
        crutch technically.  So a change is definitely called for.

    True.

        But I don’t consider GitHub a nobrainer or I'd likely have an
        account there: I chose not to the last time I read their terms
        of use, and while I haven't rechecked since then, its change of
        ownership does not inspire confidence.  Now of course the terms
        and guarantees then might have been chosen in order not to
        interfere with potential high-powered acquisitions, a goal many
        startups work towards to, and may be something that Microsoft
        does not need to bother with.  So in theory they might even have
        improved.  I'd need to check again.

    I haven’t delved into this either, but I know that they “support
    GPL” (whatever that means).

        But LilyPond is a size where taking out a commercial offer would
        be pretty expensive, and taking out a free offer means you have
        nothing to rely or insist on since there hasn't been an exchange
        of considerations involved.

    True. But, there are GitHub alternatives that are free, for example
    Gitea.

    Erlend

-- 
David Kastrup