On 20/05/14 16:11, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 05/20/2014 12:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >> Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same >> "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal >> git repo) ? > > > git.centos.org to be the public visible, but not commitable / forkable > repo - for that we use the github.com/CentOS org, to match all the other > repos that were working with at the moment. > > ok, so basically you meant gitorious -> github ... The reason why we selected gitorious instead of github when we started were the following : * gitorious uses opensource applications (while github doesn't) * it was possible to have a self-hosted gitorious app on our machine if we wanted (but in the mean time we've used gitblit for git.centos.org) Now, it's true that you can find more people active on github than on gitorious (even if it's easy/free to create an account there). So do we want to reconsider where to host the t_functional git repo ? And so consolidating all our "forkable/contributor-wanted" repos under the github.com/centos umbrella ? -- Fabian Arrotin gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab