From: David Kastrup <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:06
Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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.
Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot. I already understood that category B
is subject to contempt. Congrats on being category A or C.
Turns out that "anyone" is actually "anyone accepting the conditions for
a GitHub account":
If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub,
push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request.
I've read the rather longish Terms&Conditions of GitHub and found myself
unwilling to agree to them. Which does not mean that changing the ways
of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any
sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the "Git
community" should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to
make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website
programming.
--
David Kastrup
From: Christian Couder <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:06
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:37 PM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:
Shawn Pearce [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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.
Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot. I already understood that category B
is subject to contempt. Congrats on being category A or C.
Turns out that "anyone" is actually "anyone accepting the conditions for
a GitHub account":
If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub,
push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request.
I've read the rather longish Terms&Conditions of GitHub and found myself
unwilling to agree to them. Which does not mean that changing the ways
of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any
sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the "Git
community" should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to
make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website
programming.
A few other points about git-scm.com:
* as Michael says it "still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site"
* some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want
them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216
(By the way this pull request talks about bugs in
https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not
fixed...)
It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site
that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can
be rejected because it is not maintained by us.
From: Scott Chacon <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:06
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Christian Couder
[off-list ref] wrote:
A few other points about git-scm.com:
* as Michael says it "still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site"
* some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want
them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216
(By the way this pull request talks about bugs in
https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not
fixed...)
It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I
think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it
is maintained "by us". If he had felt strongly about the addition, I
easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was
helpful in a larger sense.
I try very hard to maintain a balance of simplicity and function. This
site is mostly for people new to the project - it helps them see what
Git is for, how to use it well and how to get involved. If you put
everything you can into the site it makes it harder to find other
things that may be more important.
It's also important to remember that a home page is not really
primarily for the people in this list. It's for the people who may one
day be interested in this list and for the far greater number of
people who want to use the end result of the hard work of the people
on this list. It hopefully reduces the support and explanation style
questions that might otherwise be sent to this list by helping to
explain things before people resort to asking you all. It's meant to
be a tool shielding you all from the introductory questions that would
otherwise probably just annoy you.
That all said, if someone is interested in helping with the
maintenance and going over these pull requests, I'm more than happy to
give them access, but I really want to maintain the simplicity and
professional sense of design that we've worked very hard to maintain.
Not every patch that works that comes to Junio is accepted and not
every pull request that comes into the site will be merged for the
same reason - we want to maintain the quality and utility of the
resource. There have been 157 merged pull requests from the community
in the past year or so, 13 of which were from the author you're
mentioning in this example. You pointed to the one pull request out of
14 total patches from Peff that was not merged.
It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site
that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can
be rejected because it is not maintained by us.
Again, if you can point to a GitHub logo on any page of the website, I
would love to see it. And Pro Git is free and read by hundreds of
thousands of people day all over the world and available in dozens of
languages in multiple ebook formats. I would remove the Amazon links
if anyone wishes, but the SFC gets income from it, so I doubt they
would want to.
Scott
It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I
think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it
is maintained "by us". If he had felt strongly about the addition, I
easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was
helpful in a larger sense.
Yes, this. It was _my_ pull request, and as I noted in my final comment,
I agreed with closing it. That is not "rejected", but "withdrawn".
If somebody wants to open their own pull request, they can. But it has
been over 2 years, and I haven't seen anybody talk about this, let alone
offer to work on it.
If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,
especially one targeted at Git _developers_, I don't see a reason not
to. http://git.github.io is where I have been collecting GSoC materials,
and any community member who asks is welcome to have push access (and I
have offered to apply patches for people who do not want to use GitHub).
But aside from that GSoC content, there is nothing there (and the design
is awful; any takers?).
There is also the wiki at http://git.wiki.kernel.org. I prefer the
git.github.io site, because it is easier to manipulate using git, but if
having both is fracturing things, I'd be happy to shut it down.
So if anyone wants to contribute to Git's web presence, it seems there
are quite a few opportunities to do so.
-Peff