From: David Kastrup <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:06
Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
just does not look like a "project home".
Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.
It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom. Not
"supporting" but "using".
Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
for.
Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.
--
David Kastrup
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:
Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
just does not look like a "project home".
Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.
It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom. Not
"supporting" but "using".
Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
for.
Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.
At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:
This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.
Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome
And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone
can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of
anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to
git-scm.com.
[1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing
From: Scott Chacon <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:06
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
just does not look like a "project home".
I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make
sure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the
string "GitHub" occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it
says "This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub." I don't even
mention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon
referrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom
Conservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It
also very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's
entirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally,
since I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the
eBook downloads).
I'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a "project home". It
has basically all the same information on it that you would find on
any other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads,
source code, documentation, a book, community and development
information, etc. These are basically all the same things found on
sites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or
https://subversion.apache.org/.
It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom. Not
"supporting" but "using".
Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
for.
Well, there are 16 groups listed on that page and 10 are open source
projects and the remaining 6 are large companies using Git and open
sourcing things using it. The idea of the list is to give people new
to Git confidence that it is widely adopted both in the open source
and corporate worlds. I also am not sure what's "embarrassing" about
these companies - they all heavily participate in the open source
community and many of them sponsor development of projects like Linux
and Git.
Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me
to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought
they were still a bzr shop.
It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.
Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see
some important corporations that are using it, since many people
coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to
switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large
companies are participating in the open source community and it may
help them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well,
which I think is beneficial to everyone.
Scott
From: Stefan Beller <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:06
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Scott Chacon [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.
Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see
some important corporations that are using it, since many people
coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to
switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large
companies are participating in the open source community and it may
help them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well,
which I think is beneficial to everyone.
Yeah I'd agree on that. I'd even go a step further and claim it would be best
to show projects and companies coming from most different branches of
business.
("Can I switch my business over to Git? Oh well only these internet hacker
companies are using it, I -as an air drier firmware writer shop-
cannot relate to,
so I keep using RCS.")
Also looking at the open source projects, most of them seem to me as
large-ish umbrella projects, so a smaller(?) project like emacs would be
huge win to show off Git can work well with all kinds of projects.
From: Michael J Gruber <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:07
Scott Chacon venit, vidit, dixit 09.03.2015 18:14:
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
just does not look like a "project home".
I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make
sure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the
string "GitHub" occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it
says "This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub." I don't even
mention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon
referrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom
Conservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It
also very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's
entirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally,
since I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the
eBook downloads).
I'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a "project home". It
has basically all the same information on it that you would find on
any other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads,
source code, documentation, a book, community and development
information, etc. These are basically all the same things found on
sites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or
https://subversion.apache.org/.
Since quotes from several people got put together here and below (which
I cut out), I'd just like to reemphasize that I "don't have anything
against either", as I wrote. Github has done a lot to promote Git - as a
business, sure, but why not, and Git as a project has profited from
that, too. It goes without saying that stating "Hosted on Github" is
appropriate, not just because git-scm.com is hosted there, but because
it shows what kind of services Git empowers.
And I don't mind a listing of companies that use Git - it's not an
endorsement of those companies, rather the other way round. (I hope it's
legally OK to use their names and logos for that, I'm not a laywer, but
I'm confident you've checked.)
"This is the web application for the git-scm.com site. It is meant to be
the first place a person new to Git will land and download or learn
about the Git SCM system." says the README, and that's what the site is.
A landing page for people new to Git. It's good that we have one.
Maybe my use of the term "project home" was misleading. What I meant is:
it's not a home *for* the developer community. That's just a factual
statement without assigning blame. For example, Documentation/technical
is not linked there, and the blog doesn't carry release announcements or
Junio's technical posts. Development discussions take place on the
mailing list, and when we talk about user experience, it's UI and man
pages that we have in mind, not git-scm.com. When we need a web page for
GSoC or such, it's "something on github" that at least mentally is not
part of git-scm.com.
Now, unfortunately, git-scm.com is also not *from* the developer
community, if you define "developer := git ml regular" (and not :=
mostly not) and look at
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/graphs/contributors. There's probably
no point in going into the historical reasons for that - after all,
we're not all German ;)
Seriously, I think "we" could try to put more stuff on git-scm.com.
Having GSoC and microprojects stuff ported there would be nice, I guess
that would require someone who knows a bit about the underlying web app
to get the framework right.
Maybe there's a painless way to get release announcements or similar
posts on the blog, so that there is more visible activity? Or collect
some external blogs?
I'm a no-ruby-no-rails guy, sorry, but I'll commit at least to looking
over some content especially in the man page/documentation area.
Michael