On 2020-01-08 at 15:00, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: > GitHub is putting our eggs in Microsoft's basket. Not too enthused about that > idea. If I remember correctly, GitLab had some size restrictions that clearly > are not going to fly with LilyPond.
I am not aware of what size limits LilyPond could be running into on GitLab given that the repository size limit for repositories hosted on gitlab.com is 10G [0]. If there is some other dimension on which LilyPond has exceeded what is allowed by GitLab I would be both surprised and interested. [0] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/repository/#project-and-repository-size On 2020-01-08 at 15:11, Karlin High karlinh...@gmail.com wrote: > Apparently GNU has some say as well in the matter of repo hosting choice. > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html > They also have a report card for various repo hosting services, but it's > dated to 2016. > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html While that may be true, there are already GNU projects using GitHub as their host, for example gnucash and gnuradio. While that is not a reason LilyPond to use GitHub (despite its F rating on the GNU repo criteria evaluation), it is simply an observation that if GitHub was chosen as a new host there would be some precedent. According to the report card GitLab would be allowed (it was rated at a C). As far as finding a host with the "A" rating that Savannah has, I doubt we could find one that provides the breadth of tooling that GitHub or GitLab provide given that a requirement for an A rating is that the host must "[insist] that each nontrivial file in a package clearly and unambiguously state how it is licensed." Beyond this kind of requirement being difficult to enforce in practice, the user base of either GitHub or GitLab would be outraged if this became a requirement to use the service given how often they are used for ephemeral code sharing and non-production hosting (e.g., students using private repositories to store class assignments). Given that, if discussion about choosing a new host were to commence I think that achieving an A on the GNU evaluation should not be a requirement for choosing the host while achieving a C rating must be a requirement, with a B or higher preferred. I would also hope that in that situation we could get an updated evaluation of the options by the FSF/GNU. As it stands, GitLab would probably be a more viable candidate to look at than GitHub. Further, using something like GitLab does not preclude keeping the Savannah repository as the "canonical" host. Instead it could replace the combination of SourceForge (which got an F rating as a code host) and Rietveld. Jahrme
