[virt-tools-list] virt-manager mirror on github, eventually transition?

[Cole Robinson]

On 05/22/2015 06:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:48:04PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I set up a virt-manager mirror on github:
>>
>> https://github.com/virt-manager/virt-manager
>>
>> Right now it's just updated from the fedorahosted repo using a cron script, so
>> it's just a readonly mirror.
>>
>> However I'd like to fully transition to using github for source hosting in the
>> near term. Reasons being:
>>
>> 1) github is way faster than fedorahosted
>> 2) the network effect is real, I'm quite certain it will generate
>> contributions we wouldn't have otherwise received
>> 3) there's tons of valuable services built around github, like travis-ci
>>
>> I figure bug tracking will stay in bugzilla, though maybe we keep github
>> issues enabled to give people an easier way to report small bugs. Anything
>> that can't be fixed basically on demand we ask the reporter to file it in
>> bugzilla. Probably needs some experimentation
>>
>> pull-requests can't be disabled on github, but I think it's okay to handle
>> them in a similar way: if someone submits a small patch, then one of the other
>> maintainers can just merge it. but if it's anything non-trival, close the pull
>> request and ask they submit it to the mailing list.
>>
>> Any objections?
> 
> I think I've said before that I have a general objection to using github as
> the master repository for any project, because of their 100% closed source
> nature. I'd use github only as a read-only mirror, since that means the
> project would not have a direct reliance on closed source infrastructure.
> Previously I've suggested gitorious, but now obviously gitlab.com is the
> alternative choice I'd recommend. Obviously the network effect is not as
> large as with github, but then it is somewhat of a self-fullfilling
> own-goal if people never try the alternative.
> 

Right, I recall us discussing this a bit in the past. But IMO it's still worth
the switch.

1) Using it for just git hosting I don't really see any downside to it being
closed source, besides feeling slightly icky about supporting a closed source
platform.

2) The closed source issue is scarier if we moved to the full github workflow
and were then dependent on pull-requests, issue tracking, wiki, site hosting,
etc since then we are basically locked in. But I don't expect I'll ever want
to move fully to github so I'm not worried about this...

3) (the big one). github's massive and growing user base and all the benefits
that come with it (as outlined in my other mail) outweigh any fears I have
about platform lockin or any other downside of depending on a closed source
platform. I think long term the health of the project will be improved by
being on github.

- Cole

> All that said, since I don't actually do any dev work on virt-manager
> anymore, don't feel you need consider my objection as a blocker, if
> you really want to use github exclusively.