On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> >> wrote: >> > Pull requests. Code review. Issues. Integration with other services. >> > All the social information around all of those interactions, and >> > more. >> > >> > If *any* of that is valuable, then yes it's important that it not be >> > locked to any one vendor. >> >> Exactly how important? Not so important as to stop slabs of Python >> from migrating to GitHub, including its pull request system. > > I maintain that it is important enough to stop that. > > The migration happened anyway, because not everyone is convinced of the > importance of avoiding vendor lock-in of valuable data, over criteria > such as “this person happens to like Vendor-locked Solution Foo”. >
Fine. You're welcome to take a 100% philosophical stance; I applaud you for it. (I understand Richard Stallman is so adamant about not using *any* non-free code - software or firmware - that he restricts himself to a tiny selection of laptops that have free BIOSes.) Personally, I believe practicality beats purity in computing philosophy as well as API design, and I'll happily let GitHub carry my software. What's the worst that can happen? I have to switch to somewhere else, and I lose the issue tracker and pull requests. In the case of CPython, they wouldn't even be lost - they're (to be) backed up. In the meantime, I'm on a well-polished platform with a large number of users. The same cannot be said for *many* other hosts, even if they do use exclusively free software. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
