On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 21:00 Svetlana Tkachenko <
address@hidden> wrote:
Gregory Casamento wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 19:40 Svetlana Tkachenko wrote:
are required to continue using a savannah or a gitlab officially as
github is nonfree and can't be added to official gnustep docs.
> We have a mirror on github now. Once we are on Savannah it will be bidirectional. We can call Savannah the master if that satisfies the FSF political agenda. Additionally, the whole point of the previous discussion was to underscore the point that we can commit from either place.
>
> Using Savannah is untenable due to its shortcomings as previously described in this thread.
Apart from migration 'to git' taking 3 months and not being done
right...
As I said, I asked and had to pester them for weeks. That's unacceptable.
Pull requests are a pain at Savannah. They have a patches section
(https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?8217) to submit proposed changes
without creating a fork-which-takes-ages-to-manually-approve, but it
does not allow inline comments on the diff.
Savannah is not usable.
Gregory Casamento wrote:
> I have seen nothing from RMS saying we can't mention where we are mirrored in GNUstep docs. If we did I would be shocked as this would restrict access to free software.
A freedom-respecting way to link a user to software which is only found
on github is by providing them with a tarball or a working git mirror.
Such mirror, while respecting the user's freedoms, may be less
convenient.
We've already got one (a mirror).
Gregory Casamento wrote:
> I would like to hear directly from him on this subject.
I would be glad to have an official response from FSF about this as well
so I will perhaps forward a link to this thread to address@hidden .
First off I really don't need you or anyone else to act as a liaison for me to RMS or the FSF. I have met the man in person (in Brighton, UK). I'll ask him myself as I have done on many occasions over the last 15 years.
I have to add this... I believe it's childish to ask for permission for every bloody little thing. We have a working mirror already on github. The discussion is around using github as a second master until Savannah is up to snuff. Period.
Gregory Casamento wrote:
> Another option is for us to consider this a fork. It would simplify a number of things for us if that were the case.
It is a fork only if it is different contents than the other copy.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it's a fork if I say it's a fork. If I take GNUstep and put it on another server and call it Cacao even with no changes or minimal changes, It's a fork.
GC