[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Remaining TODOs to finish migration from CVS to Git

Great points Vladimir, but why did you wait so many months, until after
the work was done, in order to offer your input?

On 2019-02-03 15:19, Vladimir Sedach wrote:
> > Well, I know.  However, I am still worried about the suitable service of
> > our project home page.  GitHub Pages is a good service to use easily,
> > however, I am still unhappy as an English non-native because GitHub
> > Pages does not support content negotiation feature.  The current project
> > page (http://emacs-w3m.namazu.org) uses it, and we can see an
> > appropriate page automatically.
> Also be aware that Github is owned by Microsoft, and has many issues
> around privacy, not being Free Software, and not having any
> guarantees about services being changed or being shut down.

Everything you say is correct, and I'm not aware of anyone claiming to
have software to be a drop-in replacement for github. Do keep in mind,
though that github does provide repository owners the ability to easily
backup ancillary data, such as issues, pull requests, wikis, to a
neutral format (I think its json, but it might be xml), that _should_ be
importable by other strategies.

Maybe had you made the arguments months ago, the project would never
have chosen github?

My personal inclination is that: 1) using github will be much better for
the project than the situation of the last fifteen years; 2) for what
the project does, a decision at some point in the future to abandon
github in favor of some other option wouldn't be a big deal (pretty much
everything is cc'ed to the mailing list, which was the pre-github
method); 3) there's nothing 'private' about the project for github
privacy to be an issue, and while the old system of using a mailing list
exposes your email address to everyone world-wide, posting to github
does not.

If the project does decide to move to some other git host strategy, I
don't have any objection in principle.

> But most importantly of all, Github does not work very well with w3m.

That is *theoretically* a big issue, but in practice, not so much,
because github has great command line support, great emacs support, and
I can browse the site reasonably well in emacs-w3m. BTW, I've found the
situation with gitlab really *is* awful, and can't do much of anything
there without a javascript-enabled browser.

> For this reason I suggest *not* using Github pages or wikis.
> EmacsWiki is there and is a much more future-proof wiki than Github.

I can see both sides of this, and would abide by any decision or
consensus that the project reaches.

> I also think it is better to continue development by mailing patches
> to the mailing list, than Github pull requests.

Here I do disagree, Vladimir. It's much easier to track issues and
patches on any form of board, even if its just forum software, than on a
mailing list. The github interface is pleasant and easy to use, and
although I haven't tried them, is known to have options for use from
within emacs (magithub, ghub, etc) or from the command line (hub, etc).

CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0