cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Github, again.
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:31:54 GMT
Excellent, thank you Jim!

I'll start a new thread about it!

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> IMO, issue tracking is different, although if it does go
> away, the migration process can be very painful. If the
> Cordova project is willing to "risk" issue tracking on
> an external provider, then, that is their decision and
> it's not at the same level of concern as the repo itself.
>
> > On Apr 10, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > This makes sense for primary code repo, and with the latest github
> > integrations (auto-closing PR, faster sync with upstream), it really
> hasn't
> > been all that painful any more (just a bit more work for committers when
> > doing PR).
> >
> > However, does that policy also apply to issue tracking?  I think that is
> > actually the biggest hurdle -- many in the community won't opt to try
> JIRA,
> > issues go unreported.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As far as I know, it hasn't happened.
> >>
> >> The ASF has a great reputation for having very complete and
> >> detailed provenance; The combination of that record (well
> >> deserved, and well earned) as well as the ALv2 license is
> >> what makes Apache code so universally prevalent in IT nowaways.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Raymond Camden <raymondcamden@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Interesting. Thanks for sharing this. In terms of "forging" authorship
> >>> - is that something that has actually happened in the past and been an
> >>> issue, or is just something that is feared?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> Actually, during the long discussion regarding Groovy moving to
> >>>> the ASF, the whole "what's wrong w/ Github" was brought up
> >>>> several times, and answered several times (as I was almost
> >>>> sure it was done here)... In any case, the following is a
> >>>> typical response to why Github cannot be canon:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Moving-Groovy-to-a-Foundation-tp5722483p5722847.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Since IP provenance is important, I'm sure we all understand
> >>>> this issue now, and this FUD can finally die.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is the current interpretation of policy wrt providence of the
IP
> >> (code).
> >>>>> Github could go bankrupt/exit to Oracle and disappear (ala Google
> >> Code) or
> >>>>> worse go rogue and sneak patent violations into our code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll leave the likelyhood of these scare scenarios to you noting
that
> >> most
> >>>>> brands appear to feel this risk is low.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message