to git or not to git

Alessandro Rubini rubini at
Fri Aug 31 11:03:22 UTC 2018

Thanks to all who replied. Let me comment a little on these
recomendations, suggested by Bastien:


To which Bernhard (and Sandro) noted:
> Not taking new developments into account, though
> as the last evaluation came from 2016-04-13.

I know about this initiative. I'm pretty sure I also commented (in
private) on an early draft of the criteria.

But the criteria (and the evaluation) are more about where to host a
GNU package. Sure FSF suggest to follow them in general, but the
repeated focus on javascript, for example, takes a bias that for many
users is not relevant.

My main concerns, in the initial post, were about visibility and
preservation of links over time (because of submodules, for example).
Maybe the right path, as suggested by Harald and others, is try to
self-host.  As a second choice, get aware that nothing changed in
github, which is not different from other providers, and use it as a
data hosting facility (especially if we just use git and ignore the
extra features).  Also, using github (or gitlab, or both) as a backup
is good anyways.

And yes, I use mainly the command line and git-format-patch/git-am for
code exchange.  I agree with Ion that we'd benefit from "better" tools
for local management of the workflow, to remove some pressure to rely
on service providers, but I personally am cmdline-minded so I can't
help there.

But I have a question for Berhnard, who says among other
things I agree with:

> * Use hg or other trackers if you can.

why? It's already oh so difficult to get people make decent commits to
git, where at least I can point to all the world doing that...

thank you all

More information about the Discussion mailing list