Home | News | Download | Packages | Forum | Wiki | Github

Feedback Channel about Void Linux Management issues


(Enno Boland) #118

We will stay at github for the foreseeable future.

I personally found gitea useful. But with all the integrations we’re using, Travis for example, we cannot simply change the platform with yet another unpredictable workload.


#119

Couldn’t a similar scenario be done by a malicious entity to compromise an abandoned open source project? I recall reading such happened in the early days of SourceForge.


(Enno Boland) #120

VoidLinux is far from abandoned :slight_smile:


(Jacob Moen) #121

I’d rather use a project run by a group of mortals than one run by a single superhuman :slight_smile:

Void is open source, and any open source project can (and will be) forked.
What really matters is momentum and critical user mass. Evil or not, stealing a project is something that’s incredibly difficult - impossible? to pull off.

The name really doesn’t matter. Open source is not a product! it is born out of many people working together with the same goal in mind.


#122

@eichhorn Dunno, and I’m not promoting any one option. There are many and Void would need to shop around. I agree with Gottox that staying with Github is minimum pain. So I went into that subject in detail: how to deal with Github.

@Gottox Yeah, “abandoned” is inaccurate, call it “ownerless” or whatever. From the standpoint of Github, the real issues are legal and financial. Those are what Void Linux team must address. The rest is semantics.

@jtl Sure, but Github contacting JRP directly was the point of my tip. Github would not be taking anyone’s word but make a determination by itself using its own info on file.

@jacmoe Me too, that’s why it’s important for Void to add authorized committers. User mass exists. It isn’t the problem. The bottleneck is a small pool of authorized committers handling all the PRs on Github. Void needs more. That can’t be fixed until Github acts. Hence my tips.


(Greg Fitzgerald) #128