Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XNZQO-00027q-Rm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 03:34:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1XNZQN-0004rZ-DB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 03:34:00 +0000 Received: from plantcutter.riseup.net (plantcutter-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E73525294F; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 03:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 8D14822299 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user odinn.cyberguerrilla) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:33:52 -0700 Message-ID: <92a9a8424f99bf57c765f6ca0e6492ab.squirrel@mail.riseup.net> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:33:52 -0700 From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" To: "Wladimir" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Headers-End: 1XNZQN-0004rZ-DB Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 03:34:01 -0000 > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote= : >> It would be nice if the issues and git repo for Bitcoin Core were not >> on such a centralized service as github, nice and convenient as it is. > > Despite my complaining about github, I don't like the idea of moving > somewhere else. The current way of working - to use github for storing > the tree, and use a custom script for signing+merging - is fine with > me. > > Github has a low barrier to contribution. Almost every open source > developer already has a github account. Switching to something > self-hosted makes it more difficult for people to contribute. > > Plus if we have to take the hosting upon ourselves, we have to handle > sysadmin work ourselves as well. That's not a good use of the limited > manpower available. > > Also it will be a lot of work to migrate over all the current issues > and pulls. I don't look forward to that. I don't see the point of > this, sorry. > > Wladimir > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > I agree with Wladimir, keep it simple. There being many other more urgen= t questions to address, imho.