Re: Savannah vs. Gitlab

[Svetlana A. Tkachenko]

Ivan Vučica <ivan@vucica.net> wrote:
> I will avoid responding to this thread further, and I will minimize the
> size of this response.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Svetlana A. Tkachenko <
> svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:
> 
> > > I'd note that GitHub's code review tools are... wanting, and at the
> > > Dublin
> > > meeting we have generally agreed that use of any such code review tool
> > > would be optional.
> >
> > I am glad you are paying attention to the code review facilities. I do
> > not understand the last statement about Dublin. Why optional?
> >
> 
> There would probably be large, but unnecessary delays when reviewing
> contributions by current contributors.
> 
> 
> >
> > Ivan Vučica wrote:
> > > > Continuing to mention GitHub in this thread is a waste of time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Svetlana, do you believe that statement projects an appropriate attitude?
> >
> > Where we are considering moving to something new and official, it is
> > indeed a waste of time (if you find this phrase derogatory, please tell
> > me another, as in my native language it is not).
> >
> 
> The point is: the decision is not really up to you or me.
> 
> I do find it curious that you believe you get to decide which topic is a
> waste of time for the entire list. :-)
> 
> I am, for example, choosing that my participation in this thread of
> discussion does not help.

I was suggesting the same as an opinion. That is: "hi all, I think that
talking about this further does not help". I suppose the lack of "I
think" sets people off in some cases, perhaps rightfully so ...

> 
> > You are very restrictive in offering options: Subversion on Gna! which
> > > happens to be uni-directionally synced to github; or Git on Savannah.
> > >
> > > Do you truly consider those the only options?
> >
> > This bit is my personal opinion.
> >
> 
> So it is. :-)
> 
> Do consider: could there be other options, too?
> 
> Perhaps some of these other options are also more appropriate for a
> project
> that has its own domain?
I don't know, here is that paragraph again:

> Continuing to mention GitHub in this thread is a waste of time. If
> needed, there has to be a separate conversation about writing a sync
> script of "something" with GitHub after the "something" is decided (be
> it leaving things as is or moving to savannah+git, if needed). Possibly
> leave it as git + savannah since a GitHub mirror and proper
> communication with the GNU team at Savannah already solves some of the
> original problems.

I really did not mean this much harm as I saw in responses when writing
it. I meant that 

1) as far as I can see GitHub things are separate from decision being
discussed - this thought is reasonable, right? it is so because github
can't be the official place and syncing to it is a separate technical
questions. yet several people keep jumping in and saying 'github is the
best', 'what is the eta', and so on. in my view this is harming the
discussion. I was just pointing that out without intending to be
arrogant or dictating. The amount of ignorance and hostility I got in
response to this was astonishing.
2) savannah issues are miscommunication and they can be, gradually,
solved by adding more helpers there and establishing the necessary
communication and tools. there is no need to outright reject it as
unfixable forever.
3) i did not say it, and it was my mistake, that i do not mind other
free options, but in my view they offer no advantage compared to staying
at savannah, and i am ready to this view being challenged if needed and
i would be interested to learn the motivations behind moving away from
it so that i can help with either improving savannah or suggesting where
to go
3.1) so far it is just the sign-off, there is an online form some
countries need it done by paper, i understand it is done by each
contributor once only, and in my view it is a small thing compared to
getting the newcomers started with the codebase and getting them to
write the patches, it's not a kill by the time they reach the entrance
door (they get to stay for a few days/hours/weeks and learn things) nor
a thing that makes people uncomfortable regarding remaining on the
project after they did the initial learning for their first patch
3.2) also the code review, but i have no idea how it was done in the
past or how to approach it; mozilla/chatzilla review code by submitting
patch files to bugzilla and typing comments there and i was using this
approach and it worked just fine, as would savannah's patch section or
email for that basic level of functionality. if more is needed i would
like to know what it is - this is not an attempt to say that someone is
stupid for suggesting that this is important, i just do not understand
the problem clearly in my mind
4) discusisng (3) and the like is important, but i see little discussion
about it, and it is astonishing

Svetlana