On 5/4/15 10:21 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >Wasn't Savannah's main system Savane a fork of SourceForge's proprietary >software version? Anybody have more of a clue about the relations >between the various versions and what that might mean for our chances of >getting this system adopted by Savannah?
According to Wikipedia, Savane was a fork of SourceForge's open-source version made when SourceForge took their code proprietary. After some years of proprietary code, SourceForge returned to an open-source code base with Allura. I don't know if Savannah would be willing to host Allura as well as Savane. It seems that even within the FSF community there was disagreement about Savane which led to the creation of Gna! as a fork of Savane. I read about it, but I don't understand all the details and I'm certainly not privy to the back story. There seems to be some residual animosity towards SourceForge about taking SourceForge proprietary and the way they went about it. So the FSF could easily have reservations about employing the new open-source Allura. > >If we have a really viable migration path out of non-Savannah hosting, >it seems like putting our eggs not in too many outsourced baskets might >save us from some future headaches like the Google code one. I'm not sure if this comment means you'd rather do everything on Savannah hosting, or that you'd rather move away from Savannah hosting. I'm fine if we can get everything on Savannah, but it seems to me that in the past, there was a feeling that Savane's bug tracking was significantly inferior to Google Code. I don't know, because I never used it. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
