Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > Just a reminder: nobody's talking about replacing everything with > web-based interfaces. I think that the discussion is about providing > both web-based and other interfaces. > > And i know at least one potential serious contributor that is driven > away by complicated interfaces. And he seemed to quite like GitHub > workflow after trying it.
But "GitHub workflow" is for getting something done in Git. It does not fit any better into our split Google-issue/Rietveld system than using Git does. If we went to a naked Git workflow, like projects as Git or Linux do, he could better work with GitHub than he can do now. Now I am against moving our Google/Rietveld setup to GitHub, which is not just a proprietary platform but also has usage conditions (including reserving the right of deleting all your repositories and data without warning at a whim) that are not suitable for relying on. That does not mean that web tools are out of the question: what is the problem here is not as much the use of a web tool, but rather the use of the _Service_ of GitHub. If you take a look at things like Gitorious, we have the situation that we again have a basically private hosting service, but independently we also have an AGPLd software behind it. That means that if we evaluated that software and found it would meet our purposes better than existing solutions, there is a reasonable chance that we can convince Savannah to host it. That's not an option that we have for GitHub as far as I can see. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
