Hi. Thanks for detailing your POV. However...
Le dim. 26 juil. 2020 à 19:08, Melloware <melloware...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I know there seems to to be a holy war "holy war" certainly not. The notion of "independence" would be appropriate. > about the use of GitHub going on > here but I thought I would just chime in with some thoughts as an open > source developer and avid user of GitHub. There have been so many > different points I will only discuss a few that I think are important. > > 1. GitHub is the most popular open source repo in the world. Developers > know how to use it, its easy to use and provides all the tools a good > open source project needs. When I see an open source project is NOT on > GitHub, but still on say SourceForge I am immediately not interested in > contributing because of the barrier to entry vs GitHub. Good tools help. Good tools don't make a good project. Furthermore, this thread is about "process", not trying to prove that GitHub would not be a good platform for development. > 2. The argument that PR's attract one time committers who don't stick > around and doesn't build community??? I personally see this as an asset > NOT a liability. On some open source projects some of the nastiest bugs > or security flaws have been reported and closed by a "one time PR" and > that person is never heard from again. But if its a quality PR and its > improving the quality of the code who cares??? You just saved one of the > active developers a lot of time. Even if the PR is not perfect its OK > it can be massaged to meet standards. To me this is what makes GitHub > great. People already responded to that. Of course that a one-time good PR is worth it... And, so too, spending hours spelling out what is expected from contribution to this (or any other) project because a newcomer thinks that it's not necessary to get acquainted with it (e.g. through browsing the source and the SCM log) is not worth it. > 3. Things like Dependabot and other automated actions are AWESOME. They > are scanning for changes and informing you when you don't have time to > be constantly checking for dependencies or security flaws etc. This > should be looked at as a huge plus but somehow on this mailing list it > causes so much anger. Could you please stop rewriting history? There might have been misunderstanding on every part. But the main point which I perhaps failed to convey is the lack of discussion *before* the fact. > GitHub is the future of open source. It is the reason Google Code > shutdown and why SourceForge is dying a slow death etc. I don't know the timeline for sure, but I think that SourceForge was dying before. Furthermore, the ASF is not just a group of developers looking for a code hosting solution. > Young > developers know GitHub and its their preferred open source repo. A few years back, you would have said that about SourceForge. So what? ;-) > If > Apache Commons decided to move away from it I think it would be a huge > mistake Who even suggested that. If it was chosen by the Apache INFRA as our mirroring solution, we can assume by default that it was the best move. But some people don't forget history... > and further isolate what already is a small community of committers. The small community problem predates GH's success. Regards, Gilles > > Mello > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
