Also, as a side note (and of interest to some) you *can* add pull requests to your repo:
On 2013-02-21, at 10:29 AM, Shaun Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If you read my email, I don't tell anyone what to use, but simply attempt to clear up some fallacies. Distributed version control is new to many, and I want to make sure that folks are getting accurate information from this list.
> Unfortunately, this statement is not accurate either:
> // There's a sneaky lock-in effect of having one open tool (git hosting) which is fairly easy to move in and out and interoperate with, linked to other closed tools (such as their issues tracker and their non-git pull requests system) which are harder to move out or interoperate. //
> GitHub's API allows you to easily export issues if you want to move them somewhere else:
> Pull-requests are used by repository hosting platforms to make it easier to suggest patches. GitHub and BitBucket both use the pattern, and I don't understand what you mean by it being a "closed tool". If you're concerned about "barriers to entry", suggesting a patch using only git or mercurial can be done, but I wouldn't say it's easy.
> ... and what Devon said.
> On 2/21/13 9:34 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Shaun Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>>> * Myth #1 : GitHub creates a barrier to entry.
>> That's a fact, not a myth. Myself, I won't give GitHub my full legal
>> name and I suspect there are others who won't. So, we're not welcome
>> there and if we lie to register, all our work would be subject to
>> deletion at an arbitrary future point.
>> There's a couple of other things in the terms which aren't simple, too.
>>> * Myth #4 : GitHub is monopolizing open source software development.
>>> > "... to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open
>>> > source software on one platform.)"
>>> Convergence is not always a bad thing. GitHub provides a great, free
>>> service with lots of helpful collaboration tools beyond version control.
>>> It's natural that people would flock there, despite having lots of
>>> other options.
>> Whether or not it's a deliberate monopolising attempt, I don't think
>> that's the full reason. It's not only natural effect. There's a
>> sneaky lock-in effect of having one open tool (git hosting) which is
>> fairly easy to move in and out and interoperate with, linked to other
>> closed tools (such as their issues tracker and their non-git pull
>> requests system) which are harder to move out or interoperate.
>> Use github if you like. Just don't expect everyone to do so.
>> Hope that explains,