[Python-Dev] Move selected documentation repos to PSF BitBucket account?

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014, at 11:00, Donald Stufft wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 10:36 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > 
> >> I'd been taking "must be hosted in PSF infrastructure" as a hard
> >> requirement, but MAL pointed out earlier this evening that in the age
> >> of DVCS's, that requirement may not make sense: if you avoid tightly
> >> coupling your automation to a particular DVCS host's infrastructure,
> >> then reverting back to self-hosting (if that becomes necessary for
> >> some reason) is mostly just a matter of "hg push".
> >> 
> >> If that "must be self-hosted" constraint is removed, then the obvious
> >> candidate for Mercurial hosting that supports online editing + pull
> >> requests is the PSF's BitBucket account.
> > 
> > For the record, I object to moving *official* PSF resources to proprietary,
> > closed-source infrastructure that we do not control or have access to[*].
> > 
> > As nice and friendly as BitBucket or any other code hosting source is today,
> > there are many reasons why I think this is a bad idea for *official*
> > branches.  We are beholden to their policies and operations, which may not
> > align with PSF policies or principles today or in the future.  We will not be
> > able to customize the experience for our own needs.  We will not have access
> > to the underlying resources should we need them for any purpose.  We cannot
> > take action ourselves if some problem occurs, e.g. banning an offensive user.
> > 
> > You're right that in a world of dvcs, branches can be mirrored anywhere.  For
> > that reason, I have no problem allowing developers to use non-PSF controlled
> > resources *unofficially* if it makes their work easier and doesn't conflict
> > with their own principles.  However, in such cases, I still believe that the
> > official, master, blessed repositories remain on PSF controlled
> > infrastructure.  Surely that too is possible in the world of dvcs, right?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > -Barry
> > 
> > [*] Please note that I am not objecting to our use of lower-level resources
> > donated by our generous sponsors.  It's a fine line perhaps, but I have no
> > problem with a wiki running on a VM hosted on some donated hardware, since we
> > still have full access to the machine, the OS, and the application software.
> 
> Personally I care less about proprietary and closed-source and care a lot
> more
> about lock-in. Thus my big problem using Bitbucket for these things is
> that if
> we ever want to *leave* bitbucket it becomes a lot harder because you
> have a
> bunch of links and such pointing at bitbucket instead of a python.org
> domain.
> They do offer a redirect feature but that is dependent on them not taking
> that
> away in the future. (They also offer a CNAME feature but if you use it
> you lose
> the ability to use TLS, which is also a non starter for me). Sadly this
> also
> leaves out my favorite host site of Github :/. Something like Github
> Enterprise
> or Atlassian stash which are able to be migrated away from are better in
> this
> regards.
> 
> Ironically we do use a propetiary/closed-source/hosted solution for
> https://status.python.org/ but it’s not terribly difficult to migrate
> away from
> that if we ever wanted to.

The more significant one is probably Fastly.