On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:02:17 -0500 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, seth vidal > <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:39:56 -0500 > > Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Jesse Keating (jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >> > On 2/6/12 2:30 PM, seth vidal wrote: > >> > >On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:20:25 -0800 > >> > >Jesse Keating<jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >>On 2/6/12 8:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> > >>>So another question to be considered is whether github > >> > >>>provides a service that isn't available from other, open > >> > >>>source third-parties. > >> > >> > >> > >>gitorious being the closest open source alternative. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >What about gitlabhq? > >> > > >> > Looks like it was started in 2011, which was after I did any > >> > looking into this market :) > >> > >> I may be blind, but it also doesn't look like gitlabhq is actually > >> offering hosting/a service - they'll give you the code so you can > >> host your own. > >> > > > > correct they don't - however we may have the capacity to host that > > in FI. > > Argh. Why? We already have fedorahosted.org which hosts git trees. > We also have fedorapeople.org, which can easily host git trees per > user. I don't see the need to host ANOTHER git tree hosting thing at > all. > I didn't say we WOULD - I just said we might - and one merit of gitlabhq is just that it is a better interface than trac + gitweb. -sv _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
