I guess he doesn't like bibucket's web interface.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Micheal Smith <xul...@cheapbsd.net> wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. The current setup works > for me. However bitbucket both offers mercurial, and the suckless namespace > is currently free. Might be an easier, and more sensible fit regarding a > mirror. > > On Jul 3, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Kai Hendry wrote: > >> On 3 July 2012 12:47, Nick <suckless-...@njw.me.uk> wrote: >>> Is there any point in this other than as a distributed backup? >>> I worry it may slightly fragment things, with people searching for >>> dwm and using the github copy, rather than our primary one. Or >>> sending us github pull requests rather than patches. >> >> Well I'm hoping for more, since I quite like the github BTS and UI. >> >> Depends on how many of suckless authors I can convince to take an >> interest. ;) Don't think it would work if I'm some sort of proxy. >> >> >> I think the github UI has some value at least. >> https://github.com/scklss/dwm/graphs/ >> >> >> I'll work on a @daily cronjob that will hopefully keep it synced. >> > >
