From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB793858D33 for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 22:47:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1FB793858D33 Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id g6so24909088ejw.1 for ; Sun, 01 May 2022 15:47:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7rF6pl+zDc2LB1m/FTxTUKF7SX/0f41e1XWZsq1kIsg=; b=YBqV6Q7esRjrz4sw8zukXJljtxOLrc6Oyele5jXvPs2RgPqSFshnh8kX5+HOplr0eE TsLblQI+7QtP6V5CM/HeCGQu2S5rK4yCOatr6J8tfFW7lbrUW+SnfcZRQiGw7v08F6FP ZzV2HfcjBwKiR7JU5FcOB1cOVd+z/rmD4EPh5fgdWGnStaiytYS7MMClVyHSKsLk56Vf +SlhNuWF+ZLRtRP+I0KTJHOkKyqtDRvlj9ifigiJpuxvxsTofz9GTnLJeaRtEske3kqu 7p3IR6aSoDsqIEGHGT1DE227GlwtxRY2eQWghleAH7Dlu8PWNyKQKttapm3FyHC5zRoB wRuA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FTU+odWd0WSPqrr/Z063VBMF8KFR5smhnOaObibRynghEBOBd cN6XecKn9s0jhuvIAP8XGSidxdWyt6lBZfIgeIQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxaQQMPjKcJTWQY4QHfpjcLKWh6yPM7I1Xr2Pxz6unyfc7ET49lpNB1vwuH5OZYMS18Cb5YCRYCOb/SqoHE00o= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4fc3:b0:6e0:66a5:d59c with SMTP id i3-20020a1709064fc300b006e066a5d59cmr8796449ejw.131.1651445235697; Sun, 01 May 2022 15:47:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <34E58964-E930-4DF9-87CD-18D4C63DBCEB@redhat.com> <20220430195507.GA11996@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20220430214839.GC11996@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20220501224238.GD30898@gnu.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <20220501224238.GD30898@gnu.wildebeest.org> From: v Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 16:46:49 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Testing Setup - More Tests and Automation? To: Mark Wielaard Cc: Ben Woodard via Libabigail X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: libabigail@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list of the Libabigail project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 22:47:19 -0000 My desire is that the project attracts new developers, and from a standpoint of data and numbers an easy way to do that is using GitHub. My feelings about software freedom are not even related to this discussion, so you need not bring up points about me personally. This is my feedback. I hope y'all can come up with a plan to create a libabigail developer community, because I don't see it. Take care, I think I've said my piece and I'm done. On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 4:42 PM Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Vanessa, > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 04:38:52PM -0600, v via Libabigail wrote: > > I appreciate you keeping your opinion about GitHub and dislike separate > > from an overall evaluation of what is best for the project. There are > > things that I don't like too, but I recognize the value for other > > developers or (in this case) growing a community. > > I am aware of my biases and preferences, which might be different from > other developers based on our experiences. And I certainly want to > learn from other experiences. But I do believe software freedom comes > first and there are real negatives to a community for relying on some > proprietary centralized hosting facility. I am happy to learn and > adopt free software replacements to get a similar experience though. > > I am a little disappointed you seem to brush away any concerns by > saying github is currently really popular in some groups of > developers. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good > or appropriate in all circumstances. It would also be nice if you > could at least acknowledge that there are (possibly better?) > alternative forges which support "modern practices" that aren't > proprietary. Or that you would at least be willing to look at > them. They might not be exactly what you are personally accustomed to, > but if you evaluate them honestly we can at least see whether we can > adapt them. They are free software platforms after all, which we can > improve together. > > Cheers, > > Mark >