Can you two take your argument somewhere else? This thread is REALLY boring. 

(Am I going to make it worse by posting this? Are people going to start flaming me for being intolerant? Would I deserve it? Possibly.  I am willing to take that risk in a last ditch hope that the Code4Lib listserv can somehow return to having actual discussions of code and technical matters again, instead of being like most other non-technical 'library technology' listservs. Unlikely, eh?  Should we start a Code4LibDiscussingCodeAgain separate listserv? Please don't answer any of these questions in this thread, or on this listserv at all, really. )
From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of MJ Ray [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] GitHub Myths (was thanks and poetry)

Shaun Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> 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.

As would I.  I don't think spreading misinformation about the products
of GitHub, Inc, is helping people to get accurate information.

> 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. //

Nothing written below points out any inaccuracy.

> GitHub's API allows you to easily export issues if you want to move them
> somewhere else:

So what's the equivalent command to "git clone ...." to do that, then?
I put harder, not impossible.  You try putting the sausagemeat you get
from that API into any other issue tracker.  Also, that API is only
available to registered users and it's unique as far as I've seen.

> Pull-requests are used by repository hosting platforms to make it easier
> to suggest patches.  GitHub and BitBucket both use the pattern,

Well, the pattern comes from the git request-pull tool.  GitHub just
disconnects it from that.

> 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.

git send-email and git request-pull are both pretty easy, aren't they?

and what Erik said about open/closed.

> ... and what Devon said.

Which was "If you're not willing to provide even your name to make use
of a free service, then I dare say you are erecting your own

I'm willing to provide my name.  I'm not willing to provide my full
legal name to them.  They have no need for my full legal name.  Even
if they want to come after me legally, the legal system will either
accept my common alias or convert it for them (I have to tell it both,
for that reason).

Hope that explains,
MJ Ray (slef), member of, a for-more-than-profit co-op. supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see
Available for hire (including development) at