[En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Moving to github

[Harald Kipp]

Hi Thiago,

On 21.07.2015 15:06, Thiago A. Corrêa wrote:
> IMHO it would be best that the "official" repository to be git repository
> then. Hosted anywhere, either SF, GitHub or GitLab.
> Release files could be kept in SF.

I can read this statement, but I'm missing an argument that may convince
others that this would be the best solution.


> I understand the argument that devs break other platforms unknowingly, but
> still I don't think making "official" fragments would be beneficial, it

Aha! So... we like decentralization and anarchy, but somebody has to
tell us, where is the focus and whom we have to follow. Anarchy for
bookkeepers. ;-)

What's your definition of "an official repository"? The one that tells
you: "Yeah well, I'm buggy, break old apps, don't care about licenses
and patents, but this label on my back clearly states, that I'm the
official guy." Probably not. What you need is a repository, that fits
your needs. If one exists, support it. If not, select the next best fit
and create a fork.


> would be just another place to patch bugs in the arch independent portions
> (or worst, forget to patch them).

Philipp's TI-CM3 branch is _the_ proof, that this can work. It is one of
the (sub-)repositories I'd trust. If you think that an important patch
is missing, you can offer it to him. But it's his decision to accept or
reject it and your decision to follow him or create your own fork.

Is freedom really so scary?

Regards,

Harald