[U-Boot] mirror u-boot on github

[U-Boot] mirror u-boot on github

[Ben Gardiner]

Hi Wolfgang,

Could a mirror of u-boot tree (and maybe u-boot-testing) be put up at
github? I asked them directly to do this some time ago [1] and then
got cold feet.

I've been putting this off for some time because I wasn't sure if
there would be any interest or even if it was a worthy idea. My recent
experience with the arm-reloc patches from Heiko [2] made me think
that it could be useful.

The mirror on github would not be a replacement for the custodian
trees[3] but it can be a useful starting point for staging long
patches. Forks of github repos are easy to create and can be public
right away meaning a long patch series can be easy for the custodians
to pull and easy for testers to pull.

As an alternative anyone could, of course, create a repo on github and
push a copy of u-boot from their local repo to github but having a
common starting point on github means that multiple forks wouldn't
waste storage space; it also makes finding the forks straightforward.

Consider the linux-2.6 mirror at github [4]. One of the forks [5] was
used recently by Alexander Gordeev to propose patches for inclusion to
the kernel [6]. I imagine that Heiko's patches could have been put in
a github fork of u-boot-testing and made available by a URL without
any intervention from you.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

[1] http://support.github.com/discussions/email/7257-mirror-request-u-boot?anon_token=de1fa2b84d591dcfe2226cba254bc92c46b28931
[2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/81825
[3] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees
[4] http://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6
[5] http://github.com/ago/linux-2.6
[6] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1018841

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca

[U-Boot] mirror u-boot on github

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Ben Gardiner,

In message <AANLkTinWDRkfOw1wLZiw2VC8Mu7cqYmdMW1QqELn6TyN@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> Could a mirror of u-boot tree (and maybe u-boot-testing) be put up at
> github? I asked them directly to do this some time ago [1] and then
> got cold feet.

I don't know if it could be done (probably it could), but then, I'm
certainly not going to do it. Their ToS are not acceptable to me.

For example: "E2. Prices of all Services, including but not limited
to monthly subscription plan fees to the Service, are subject to
change upon 30 days notice from us. Such notice may be provided at
any time by posting the changes to the GitHub Site (github.com) or
the Service itself." I understand that github may run your project
for free until you put enough effort in it that losing it would be
painful, and then they could decide that the service is no loger
free, but they charge you $$$ for it. All they have to do is "posting
the changes to the GitHub Site (github.com) or the Service itself."
That means chances are good that you don't even notice such change in
time. They have your e-mail addresses - why don't they actively
notify about such changes?

G11 might be another reason not to use github. Better not use them for
a project which receives any better interest than average. 


> The mirror on github would not be a replacement for the custodian
> trees[3] but it can be a useful starting point for staging long
> patches. Forks of github repos are easy to create and can be public
> right away meaning a long patch series can be easy for the custodians
> to pull and easy for testers to pull.

I want to keep with the requirement that all patches have to go
through a single channel where everybody can take part in the
reviewing preocess even in early phases - i. e. postings on the
mailing list. git-am makes it trivial enough to apply such patches.

> As an alternative anyone could, of course, create a repo on github and
> push a copy of u-boot from their local repo to github but having a
> common starting point on github means that multiple forks wouldn't
> waste storage space; it also makes finding the forks straightforward.

Don't worry about storage space - this is a cheap resource.

> Consider the linux-2.6 mirror at github [4]. One of the forks [5] was
> used recently by Alexander Gordeev to propose patches for inclusion to
> the kernel [6]. I imagine that Heiko's patches could have been put in
> a github fork of u-boot-testing and made available by a URL without
> any intervention from you.

If you want to create a ton of forks please feel free to go on an do
it. Nobody wila lprevent you from using whatever tools and services
you find efficient to work with.

But, given their current ToS, I will not work with github in any way. 

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
One does not thank logic.
	-- Sarek, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4

[U-Boot] mirror u-boot on github

[Ben Gardiner]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> [...] certainly not going to do it. Their ToS are not acceptable to me.
>
> For example: "E2. Prices of all Services, including but not limited
> to monthly subscription plan fees to the Service, are subject to
> change upon 30 days notice from us. Such notice may be provided at
> any time by posting the changes to the GitHub Site (github.com) or
> the Service itself." I understand that github may run your project
> for free until you put enough effort in it that losing it would be
> painful, and then they could decide that the service is no loger
> free, but they charge you $$$ for it. All they have to do is "posting
> the changes to the GitHub Site (github.com) or the Service itself."
> That means chances are good that you don't even notice such change in
> time. They have your e-mail addresses - why don't they actively
> notify about such changes?
>
> G11 might be another reason not to use github. Better not use them for
> a project which receives any better interest than average.

I must admit that I didn't really consider the ramifications of the
terms of service at github -- you make a couple good points there.

> In message <AANLkTinWDRkfOw1wLZiw2VC8Mu7cqYmdMW1QqELn6TyN@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>> The mirror on github would not be a replacement for the custodian
>> trees[3] but it can be a useful starting point for staging long
>> patches. Forks of github repos are easy to create and can be public
>> right away meaning a long patch series can be easy for the custodians
>> to pull and easy for testers to pull.
>
> I want to keep with the requirement that all patches have to go
> through a single channel where everybody can take part in the
> reviewing preocess even in early phases - i. e. postings on the
> mailing list. git-am makes it trivial enough to apply such patches.

Yes I totally agree. Please allow me to clarify that I do not want to
stop patches being sent to the ML.

'git am' works fine for me also -- once the patches are downloaded
from the mailing list. It is the downloading process with which I
currently have trouble. I'll focus on streamlining that part of my
process so that I can work as the rest of the u-boot developers do.

> But, given their current ToS, I will not work with github in any way.

Thank you for taking the time to read through their ToS and for
considering my request. I appreciate you sharing your interpretation
of github's ToS.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca