Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:02:17 -0500
Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, seth vidal
> <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:39:56 -0500
> > Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said:
> >> > On 2/6/12 2:30 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> >> > >On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:20:25 -0800
> >> > >Jesse Keating<jkeating at redhat.com>  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