Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> writes: > On 1/1/2016 4:08 PM, Zachary Ware wrote: > > There were three reasons given in Brett's decision message: > > > > 1. No major distinguishing features between GitHub or GitLab
It seems “complete source code available and freely licensed, allowing the community to implement the entire tool set elsewhere, without any need to consult the existing service provider” – i.e. community control over their own tools – is not considered a major distinguishing feature. > In particular, some inactive contributors who use git and github > apparently emailed Brett to say that they might re-activate if they > could use the process they otherwise use all the time instead of > Python's idiosyncratic workflow. This is a grave concern. A strong implication of “use the process they otherwise use all the time” is that these people expect to use GitHub's proprietary, centralised, single-vendor workflow tools. This implication necessarily entails rejecting contributions from other community members who don't use those single-vendor tools. The decision to take tools that were expressly designed to escape single-vendor centralisation, and then willingly build single-vendor workflows around them which divide the free software community along vendor lines, is a foolish and worrying trend. I am alarmed to see the Python core team go further down that path. -- \ “… whoever claims any right that he is unwilling to accord to | `\ his fellow-men is dishonest and infamous.” —Robert G. | _o__) Ingersoll, _The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child_, 1877 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
