Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
and making pull requests. You could benefit.
> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
> On Jun 18, 10:00 am, Eric Mill <kproject...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> > Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> > Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> > thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> > and making pull requests. You could benefit.
If you guys don't know much about Git or Github even, I should point
out that the Git paradigm and the conveniences they've developed on
top of it actually do *increase* community visibility and greatly
encourages contributions to projects through their forking system. I
write this as a fellow open-source project manager using Github. :)
On Jun 18, 7:00 am, Eric Mill <kproject...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
>> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome. >> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a >> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects >> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
We're not going to github. We'd really rather stay in control of our tree for now, for several reasons.
It's not off the table, it's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
> >> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> >> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> >> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> >> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
> We're not going to github. We'd really rather stay in control of our
> tree for now, for several reasons.
> It's not off the table, it's just not going to happen in the
> foreseeable future.
> >> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> >> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> >> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> >> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
> We're not going to github. We'd really rather stay in control of our
> tree for now, for several reasons.
> It's not off the table, it's just not going to happen in the
> foreseeable future.
> On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> > >> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> > >> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github? It's got a
> > >> thriving community of people who love Git and love forking projects
> > >> and making pull requests. You could benefit.
> > We're not going to github. We'd really rather stay in control of our
> > tree for now, for several reasons.
> > It's not off the table, it's just not going to happen in the
> > foreseeable future.
On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> We're not going to github. We'd really rather stay in control of our
> tree for now, for several reasons.
> It's not off the table, it's just not going to happen in the
> foreseeable future.
You don't lose control, you just gain audience and tools. You still
own the canonical tree and nothing gets into your release branch
unless you specifically put it there.
I had already put it there because there are some things that reddit
doesn't do that I'd like to be able to do something about. I've got
tools that query my github account and ensure I've got local copies of
all of my work in various places. (I never know what I might end up
doing on the train)
On Jun 18, 9:00 am, Eric Mill <kproject...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Releasing Reddit's source code is a terrific idea. You are awesome.
> Have you considered putting reddit's code onto Github?
Yes - thanks very much for releasing this, and +1 for having your repo
on github.
You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your
"real" one on your own server. All you'd need to do is push up to
origin/github, and then people could "fork" on github and you'd get
the nice benefits of being on there without impacting your current
setup. Dr Nic actually wrote about this with regard to Rubyforge a
while ago:
> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your > "real" one on your own server.
Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay there.
That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github, it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
>> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your >> "real" one on your own server.
> Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay > there.
Nobody's suggesting you migrate. They're simply suggesting that you
maintain an official presence on github and mirror your repo there
(which takes nothing more than a single git push). This way folks who
hear reddit has a git repo and immediately look on github first (like
me) will find the official one and not find some out-of-date fork that
someone else has pushed.
You can even write a simple script (or post-receive hook) that simply
pushes all changes made to the official repo to the github one, and
then you can be done with it.
On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
> We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on
> our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just
> moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just
> migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've
> totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the
> cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of
> screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you
> tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and
> that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github,
> it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
> In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked
> trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
> On 18 Jun 2008, at 15:04, David King wrote:
> >> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your
> >> "real" one on your own server.
> > Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in
> > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the
> > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay
> > there.
> Nobody's suggesting you migrate. They're simply suggesting that you
> maintain an official presence on github and mirror your repo there
> (which takes nothing more than a single git push). This way folks who
> hear reddit has a git repo and immediately look on github first (like
> me) will find the official one and not find some out-of-date fork that
> someone else has pushed.
> You can even write a simple script (or post-receive hook) that simply
> pushes all changes made to the official repo to the github one, and
> then you can be done with it.
> On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> > That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
> > We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on
> > our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just
> > moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just
> > migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've
> > totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the
> > cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of
> > screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you
> > tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and
> > that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github,
> > it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
> > In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked
> > trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
> > On 18 Jun 2008, at 15:04, David King wrote:
> > >> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your
> > >> "real" one on your own server.
> > > Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in
> > > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the
> > > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay
> > > there.
> > > The mailing list is not a polling mechanism.
Well why not anyone? The suggestion is for reddit to maintain an
"official" mirror (which requires nothing more than a cron script or
post-receive hook) so that way people who look for it on reddit will
find what's guaranteed to be an up-to-date fork. It makes no sense for
me to try and maintain an unofficial mirror.
On Jun 18, 4:05 pm, Pratik Naik <pratikn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why can't you do it yourself Kevin ? Run a simple cron job.
> On Jun 18, 11:53 pm, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nobody's suggesting you migrate. They're simply suggesting that you
> > maintain an official presence on github and mirror your repo there
> > (which takes nothing more than a single git push). This way folks who
> > hear reddit has a git repo and immediately look on github first (like
> > me) will find the official one and not find some out-of-date fork that
> > someone else has pushed.
> > You can even write a simple script (or post-receive hook) that simply
> > pushes all changes made to the official repo to the github one, and
> > then you can be done with it.
> > On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> > > That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
> > > We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on
> > > our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just
> > > moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just
> > > migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've
> > > totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the
> > > cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of
> > > screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you
> > > tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and
> > > that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github,
> > > it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
> > > In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked
> > > trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
> > > On 18 Jun 2008, at 15:04, David King wrote:
> > > >> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your
> > > >> "real" one on your own server.
> > > > Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in
> > > > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the
> > > > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay
> > > > there.
> > > > The mailing list is not a polling mechanism.
We hear the suggestion, and we have other things to worry about at the moment. We can come back to it later, but at the moment our plates are full and we don't need any more complexities.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well why not anyone? The suggestion is for reddit to maintain an > "official" mirror (which requires nothing more than a cron script or > post-receive hook) so that way people who look for it on reddit will > find what's guaranteed to be an up-to-date fork. It makes no sense for > me to try and maintain an unofficial mirror.
> On Jun 18, 4:05 pm, Pratik Naik <pratikn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why can't you do it yourself Kevin ? Run a simple cron job.
>> On Jun 18, 11:53 pm, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Nobody's suggesting you migrate. They're simply suggesting that you >> > maintain an official presence on github and mirror your repo there >> > (which takes nothing more than a single git push). This way folks who >> > hear reddit has a git repo and immediately look on github first (like >> > me) will find the official one and not find some out-of-date fork that >> > someone else has pushed.
>> > You can even write a simple script (or post-receive hook) that simply >> > pushes all changes made to the official repo to the github one, and >> > then you can be done with it.
>> > On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
>> > > That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
>> > > We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on >> > > our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just >> > > moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just >> > > migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've >> > > totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the >> > > cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of >> > > screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you >> > > tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and >> > > that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github, >> > > it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
>> > > In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked >> > > trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
>> > > On 18 Jun 2008, at 15:04, David King wrote:
>> > > >> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your >> > > >> "real" one on your own server.
>> > > > Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in >> > > > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the >> > > > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay >> > > > there.
>> > > > The mailing list is not a polling mechanism.
Calling something "simple" that you're asking someone else to do is
never fair, and almost never accurate. Kevin and Pratik used "simple"
4 times between them, but both of them are asking somebody else to do
it. It's Reddit's job to decide what's "simple", and if their
definition now is "zero", then that's the only "simple" that matters.
It would almost certainly be more work than you think for them.
I know I'm the one who started this thread, but I started it as a
suggestion of an additional step they could take, not a way of
complaining that using git without Github is somehow inherently stupid
or blind. The tone of this thread changed rapidly, and I'm not
surprised David's did to match it. They made their decision, so let's
respect and enjoy the awesome thing they did with their code and leave
it at that.
-- Eric
On Jun 18, 7:14 pm, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well why not anyone? The suggestion is for reddit to maintain an
> "official" mirror (which requires nothing more than a cron script or
> post-receive hook) so that way people who look for it on reddit will
> find what's guaranteed to be an up-to-date fork. It makes no sense for
> me to try and maintain an unofficial mirror.
> On Jun 18, 4:05 pm, Pratik Naik <pratikn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why can't you do it yourself Kevin ? Run a simple cron job.
> > On Jun 18, 11:53 pm, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nobody's suggesting you migrate. They're simply suggesting that you
> > > maintain an official presence on github and mirror your repo there
> > > (which takes nothing more than a single git push). This way folks who
> > > hear reddit has a git repo and immediately look on github first (like
> > > me) will find the official one and not find some out-of-date fork that
> > > someone else has pushed.
> > > You can even write a simple script (or post-receive hook) that simply
> > > pushes all changes made to the official repo to the github one, and
> > > then you can be done with it.
> > > On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> > > > That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
> > > > We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on
> > > > our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just
> > > > moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just
> > > > migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've
> > > > totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the
> > > > cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of
> > > > screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you
> > > > tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and
> > > > that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github,
> > > > it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
> > > > In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked
> > > > trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
> > > > On 18 Jun 2008, at 15:04, David King wrote:
> > > > >> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your
> > > > >> "real" one on your own server.
> > > > > Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in
> > > > > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the
> > > > > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay
> > > > > there.
> > > > > The mailing list is not a polling mechanism.
The reason for an official mirror on github is that everyone can fork
it directly on github and we get all the goodness of the "network"
operations that github provides that are above git itself.
I agree that setting up github.com/reddit/reddit and then others can
fork it, and just have a cron task that pushes every X hours.
To that end I've set that up and have a cron job that will fetch
code.reddit.com and push -all to github every 15 minutes.
If/When reddit wants to move to github I'll transfer the reddit
account. In the meantime us githubers can fork a clone of the project
that will always just be a mirror (instead of a developers github
account).
Jesse
On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well why not anyone? The suggestion is for reddit to maintain an
> "official" mirror (which requires nothing more than a cron script or
> post-receive hook) so that way people who look for it on reddit will
> find what's guaranteed to be an up-to-date fork. It makes no sense for
> me to try and maintain an unofficial mirror.
> On Jun 18, 4:05 pm, Pratik Naik <pratikn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why can't you do it yourself Kevin ? Run a simple cron job.
> > On Jun 18, 11:53 pm, Kevin Ballard <kball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nobody's suggesting you migrate. They're simply suggesting that you
> > > maintain an official presence on github and mirror your repo there
> > > (which takes nothing more than a single git push). This way folks who
> > > hear reddit has a git repo and immediately look on github first (like
> > > me) will find the official one and not find some out-of-date fork that
> > > someone else has pushed.
> > > You can even write a simple script (or post-receive hook) that simply
> > > pushes all changes made to the official repo to the github one, and
> > > then you can be done with it.
> > > On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:
> > > > That comes off a little more prickly than I'd intended.
> > > > We don't need github for the way we work now, and we have too much on
> > > > our plate to work with migrating to another repository. We've just
> > > > moved to git from hg, and we're still learning git. We've just
> > > > migrated to a new trac. We've moved a lot of servers around, and we've
> > > > totally re-organised a good bit of our code. We don't need the
> > > > cognitive overhead of one more thing, especially if the cost of
> > > > screwing up is that we have to do yet another migration. Before you
> > > > tell me how easy it is, understand that it's greater than zero, and
> > > > that's all that matters at this point. We have nothing against github,
> > > > it's just that it would be one more thing on our plate.
> > > > In addition, many people have already cloned the repo, and bookmarked
> > > > trac, etc. Right after launching is a terrible time to be migrating.
> > > > On 18 Jun 2008, at 15:04, David King wrote:
> > > > >> You could just have an "official" repo on github and still have your
> > > > >> "real" one on your own server.
> > > > > Not going to happen. If you want your own clones up there (in
> > > > > accordance with the license, of course), that's fine, but the
> > > > > canonical repository is at code.reddit.com, and it's going to stay
> > > > > there.
> > > > > The mailing list is not a polling mechanism.
|
