GitHub and GitLab

[cranmer]

We are all big fans of GitHub, Travis, etc., but GitLab also provides similar services.
Should we specifically focus on GitHub in the document, or include GitLab, bitbucket, in some way

[betatim]

I think the proposal is/should be agnostic. Any repository will do as long
as it is publicly accessible. If you were a publisher running your journal
with the software we build you would probably fetch the repository from
zenodo and friends.

For a concrete prototype I would focus on git+github+zenodo. Supporting
other VC and/or hosters means combinatorially more hassle.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:45 PM Kyle Cranmer [email protected]
wrote:

We are all big fans of GitHub, Travis, etc., but GitLab also provides
similar services.
Should we specifically focus on GitHub in the document, or include GitLab,
bitbucket, in some way

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/betatim/openscienceprize/issues/27.

[m3gan0]

I also think not being GitHub dependent would be great but for a prototype it's fine. I'd include a line about expanded capabilities with other repositories being a future goal if the project is successful.

[cranmer]

Sounds good, we can probably wrap that up in a sentence or two.

[odewahn]

This struck me, as well. Lot's of people still use Jenkins (gasp!), so having it be framed a neutral function but with examples so people will "get it" seems like a better approach than being focused on one specific tool/service.