[AOLSERVER] Git on SourceForge
Tom Jackson
Since everyone here knows that I have no ability to be nice, let me
"git" to the point.
GitHub sucks!
It sucks because it costs money.
It sucks because it doesn't use gitweb.
It sucks because of poor user/group management.
It sucks because it really sucks...hard!
It sucks because is uses a little too much javascript.
It sucks because it fucks up search in general (see gitweb).
Basically the interface isn't gitweb and is oriented towards making money.
The alternative: sourceforge.
I know that sourceforge sucks...if you can run your own server. The
problem with that is how much do you trust me to keep my server up and
running? I don't trust myself. Do you trust the money-grubbers at
github? Basically they are Facebook for programmers: willing and
primed to sell your IP out at every opportunity.
An alternative?
How about git on sourceforge?
Unlike github sf costs nothing.
Unlike github sf allows infinite subprojects which cost nothing.
Unlike github sf allows infinite developers the ability to commit to
any project.
Most important:
Unlike github sf doesn't require you to bend over at a certain angle
and accept your fate.
As a starting point consider the following repo:
http://aolserver.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb-index.cgi
In this repo we have all projects and every project has a complete
commit history.
How many projects: 64!
I haven't looked into how much github would charge for 64 projects,
but that is how many we have right now.
Where are these projects on sourceforge?
http://aolserver.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb-index.cgi
Although I caution everyone that there is no community consensus on
the use of this repository, please note that everyone who could commit
to the sourceforge CVS repository can commit to this new GIT
repository.
I'll post relevant urls very soon.
tom jackson
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <list...@listserv.aol.com> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Dave Bauer
> Hi,
>
> Since everyone here knows that I have no ability to be nice, let me
> "git" to the point.
>
> GitHub sucks!
>
> It sucks because it costs money.
> It sucks because it doesn't use gitweb.
> It sucks because of poor user/group management.
> It sucks because it really sucks...hard!
> It sucks because is uses a little too much javascript.
> It sucks because it fucks up search in general (see gitweb).
>
> Basically the interface isn't gitweb and is oriented towards making money.
>
I am not sure about your other points, but github is free and
unlimited for open source projects.
https://github.com/plans
Dave
--
Dave Bauer
da...@solutiongrove.com
http://www.solutiongrove.com
Jade Rubick
Jade Rubick | Director of Development | TRUiST
2201 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 250 | Washington, DC 20007 | www.truist.com | +1 202 903 2564
P Please consider the environment before printing
The information contained in this email/document is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this email/document by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance to it, is prohibited.
Jeff Davis
> http://aolserver.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb-index.cgi
I am not sure why you think using gitweb is good - I find it pretty unpleasant. More to the point is that any clone has a full revision history so I am not sure why you would really care so much about the web interface.
I like the setup on github a lot better. Forking/watching is great and submissions of pull requests is a good way to handle dvcs integration.
github is free for open source projects; I regularly see people with 15+ forked repos and I suspect if you ask they will increase your storage limit for a large open source project particularly if its the reference repository.
Forks of a large project don't seem to go against your allocation as well (although maybe they do - need to confirm that). I forked postgres and my dashboard did not show my space used as any larger.
Yeah they have a business model but I fail to see the anal violation inherent in that.
Tom Jackson
> On 16 Nov 2010, at 18:15, Tom Jackson wrote:
>
>> http://aolserver.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb-index.cgi
>
> I am not sure why you think using gitweb is good - I find it pretty unpleasant.
I pointed this out months ago. gitweb is just a cgi program. But it
has a very good search feature. When you search on github, you search
every repo. Do you think this is helpful? When you search with gitweb
you search below your current hierarchy, plus the pickax feature is
invaluable. I also pointed out that many github features are
implemented as javascript/web forms. For people who like drop down
menus as opposed to a list of hyperlinks, github must be wonderful.
>�More to the point is that any clone has a full revision history so I am not sure why you would really care so much about the web interface.
I publish my repositories so that I can search them via gitweb!
Publishing a repository has more than one purpose. With CVS, the
purpose is somewhat limited. With gitweb, you can easily grab a
snapshot of any subtree. Maybe github has enabled subtree snapshots,
but last time I looked you could only get a top level snapshot.
> I like the setup on github a lot better. �Forking/watching is great and submissions of pull requests is a good way to handle dvcs integration.
Forking makes a public copy of the original project. What is the point
of this? Now every source code search will return hits for each fork.
Totally messed up.
> github is free for open source projects; I regularly see people with 15+ forked repos and I suspect if you ask they will increase your storage limit for a large open source project particularly if its the reference repository.
If I ask? I have to beg github?
> Forks of a large project don't seem to go against your allocation as well (although maybe they do - need to confirm that). �I forked postgres and my dashboard did not show my space used as any larger.
Point is we know what sf offers.
> Yeah they have a business model but I fail to see the anal violation inherent in that.
The whole point of the business model is to disguise the violation.
Apparently they are doing a good job.
tom jackson
BTW, there are five projects at github out of 64. On sf we have 64/64
and all previous permissions are maintained.
Tom Jackson
But that argues against the github model which creates a fork for
every developer.
Is it possible that I could maintain the sf version of AOLserver which
allows multiple developers to maintain private repositories and commit
changes to sf as needed? Or does the github model require total
submission?
tom jackson
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Jade Rubick <jru...@truist.com> wrote:
> I personally strongly favor github.
Jade Rubick
Jade Rubick | Director of Development | TRUiST
The information contained in this email/document is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this email/document by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance to it, is prohibited.
Tom Jackson
> The main argument for github is that it supports a public collaborative
> usage of git.
> Unless we hear otherwise, so far I think we can summarize this thread as:
> Tom strongly dislikes github.
> Several other people favor it.
> The rest don't care or haven't spoken up yet.
> I personally think github is the way to go. There is a reason it has
> dominated so many open source projects. The main benefit is visibility: you
> get visibility into everyone's repositories, while tracking what is the
> canonical repository. That seems highly valuable to me.
Okay, it seems like sf's gitweb search isn't working, so my main
reason for staying with sf has evaporated.
So let me ask about ideas for future development. There are 64
projects on sf, but only about 5 on github's aolserver account.
I assume that aolserver will be the main repo (for current sf code)
and developers will copy what dossy has done and fork whatever
projects are necessary for development. Then developers can add
related projects (AOLserver modules and/or patches) to their account.
Eventually some of this might get pulled into aolserver.
I've got a script to pull all the projects out of sf's cvs, creating a
transcript and moving the repos. I could add to the script so that a
README is generated as well as some kind of description and maybe push
this to github. I'll test it out at my rmadilo account on github.
Comments?
tom jackson
Jeff Rogers
> Unless we hear otherwise, so far I think we can summarize this thread as:
>
> Tom strongly dislikes github.
> Several other people favor it.
> The rest don't care or haven't spoken up yet.
I'll toss in my 2 cents. For my recent projects I've begun to use
fossil. It has a distributed wiki and bug tracker in addition to
distributed source control. The command set is very simple, much
simpler than git. There is no equivalent of github for fossil, but it
doesn't need one; fossil includes its own web interface that runs as a
cgi. The big win of fossil is that installation is simple; it's one
executable that includes everything (command line tools, client, server,
...), and it works the same on unix and win32.
It's not for everyone, but I highly suggest taking a look at it. And I
wouldn't mind if aolserver started using it :) (I've been meaning to
set up my own aolserver fossil repo, but I keep not finding the time to
do so.)
-J
Jeff Hobbs
> There is no equivalent of github for fossil
Actually yes. See http://chiselapp.com/, though fossil and git have
fundamental differences in design and purpose.
See also
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki
http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil-v-git/wiki?name=Fossil+versus+Git
Jeff
Joseph Kondel
Tom Jackson
stone tablets. Fossil lives up to its name.
tom jackson
Alexey Pechnikov
If I had to choose between Fossil and stone tablets, I would choose
stone tablets. Fossil lives up to its name.
tom jackson
Dossy Shiobara
SourceForge -- I am no longer going to waste my time wrestling with it.
I've created a "canonical" AOLserver github repo, and I have my own
personal fork. Folks are welcome to pull from either. Periodically,
I'll post patches (like I did the other day) for review -- if enough
folks feel it's reasonable to merge the change or a variation thereof,
I'll pull it into the canonical repo. Others are similarly free to send
a pull request to me and we can discuss the patch, etc.
My personal github forks should be considered unstable and/or
development whereas I'd like to keep the canonical repo as stable as
possible.
At this point, what everyone else wants to do -- great, whoever is
willing to actually DO anything, step right up and do it. I'll grant
whomever the necessary permissions on SourceForge, go wild.
On 11/16/10 10:57 PM, Tom Jackson wrote:
> Truth is: who cares? Unless you want a canonical version of AOLserver.
> But that argues against the github model which creates a fork for
> every developer.
>
> Is it possible that I could maintain the sf version of AOLserver which
> allows multiple developers to maintain private repositories and commit
> changes to sf as needed? Or does the github model require total
> submission?
--
Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/
Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)