Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> The git-scm.com site currently links to https://github.com/git/git for
> the (non-tarball) source code. Somebody raised the question[1] of
> whether it should point to kernel.org instead. Do people find one
> interface more or less pleasing than the other? Do we want to prefer
> kernel.org as more "official" or less commercial?
>
> I could see arguments both ways, so I thought I'd take a straw poll of
> what people on the list think.
>
> -Peff
>
> [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/1202
I personally do not think 'the' main url for linking to git source
does not exist and depends on what the URL is going to be used for.
In the context of the cited PR#1202, for example, the first hunk is
about a URL that appears in a sentence like this (paraphrased):
"... If you want to build from the source and fix bugs yourself,
use this URL to clone and try the next branch; the issue you
have may have already been solved ...".
The URL is *clearly* about feeding it to "git clone" so prettyness
or familiarlity of the Web UI at that URL does not matter an iota.
Unless one of k.org or github.com has far superiour bandwidth and
latency over the other, I do not think it matters which one is
recommended in the documentation.
But perhaps in another context in the same document (I didn't
closely look at the rest of PR#1202), a URL may be involved in
viewing a patch in Gitweb/cgit interface. In such a context, Web
UI's familiarity would matter a lot more.
