What I wondered, and what hasn't been debated (at least not this 'round'),
is: how is code reviewing done? My experience with being an OSS maintainer
is that it's likely people give you 'patches' which are not matching how
things should be coded, are sometimes of poor quality or cut corners and you
have to adjust them a bit to avoid a big pile of crapcode. Maybe I'm too
anal when it comes to code quality but as soon as people are able to easily
add patches to the trunk without review, it's hard to fix that later on.
E.g. if a rule about 'document what you add' is in place, how is checked
that a committer indeed documented what's been added?
With a distributed system, it's harder to verify what is coming from where,
if people are updating from non-master repositories: the person who commits
to the master has more to commit in that case than his own changes: also the
changes he pulled from a different source. How is verified those are in the
same quality?
Or is there just 1 rule: if the tests run 'it's good enough' ?
FB
> +1 for github
>
> github is much better option than codeplex+hg (in my opinion)
>
> The intregated support and management of pull requests and the whole
> community aspect around the source code repositories is a real boost to
> contribution and easy managment. If you really prefer mercurial than go
with
> bitbucket and you get some of the good this github brings.
>
> From a pure capability and tooling perspective I think Mercurial is a
little
> better (at least on windows) but I think that is compensated by the how
> great github.
>
> just my 2 cents.
> /Torkel
>
> On 3 Nov, 13:36, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > sorry NUnit is in launchpad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > Moq svn (Google code)
> > > NServiceBus svn + git (Source forge + GitHub) <== Official in SVN
> > > Rhino.ServiceBus git (GitHub) uNhAddIns Hg (Google code)
> > > SharpTestsEx Hg (Code Plex) ConfORM Hg (Google Code) NUnit svn
> > > (SourceForge) Castle git (GitHub) Spring svn (custom) NHibernate svn
> > > (SourceForge) NHibernate.Validator svn (SourceForge)
> > > NHibernate.Spatial svn (SourceForge) NHibernate.Search svn
> > > (SourceForge) NewtonJson svn (CodePlex) Log4Net svn (Apache) Lucene
> > > svn (Apache) Re-Linq svn (custom + CodePlex only for deploy) ANTLR
> > > svn (Custom) SharpMap svn (Code Plex)
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > >> I mean popular in the sense that out of the .NET projects that I
> > >> follow that uses DVCS, most use Git.
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >>> I know lot of OSS using SVN more than Git... btw..
> > >>> Mercurial is supported by Bitbucket, Google Code, SourceForge,
> > >>> CodePlex Please give me a more detailed definition of "popular"
> > >>> since its translation in Italian and in Spanish can be interpreted
> > >>> as "not used only by elite".
> >
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Diego,
> > >>>> I know of a LOT of OSS projects which are using Git I know of
> > >>>> very few using HG.
> >
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Diego Mijelshon
> > >>>> <[email protected]
> > >>>> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Oren,
> >
> > >>>>> What stats do you use to say Git is more popular?
> > >>>>> I think they both have lots of followers.
> >
> > >>>>> I'm slightly biased towards HG, because it has an easier
> > >>>>> learning curve and it doesn't have the "non-native" feel of Git on
> Windows.
> > >>>>> Regarding the specific points you mentioned: aren't those just
> > >>>>> Github features whose current implementation you like instead of
> > >>>>> Hg/Git differences?
> >
> > >>>>> In any case, here's my 2c regarding source:
> >
> > >>>>> - There seems to be a consensus to move to a DVCS. Nobody
> > >>>>> wants to
> > >>>>> stay with SVN
> > >>>>> - As others said, after the release might be a good time to
> > >>>>> do the
> > >>>>> move
> > >>>>> - IMO, the decision should be done first by the committers
> > >>>>> and, if
> > >>>>> there isn't a clear winner, by the contributors. How about a
> poll?
> >
> > >>>>> And regarding the site (in no particular order):
> >
> > >>>>> - I've said it before: the current state of NH identity is
> > >>>>> just
> > >>>>> terrible. Searches for "nhibernate" "nhibernate source"
> > >>>>> "nhibernate bug
> > >>>>> tracker" "nhibernate docs" and "nhibernate binaries" should
> > >>>>> all point to a
> > >>>>> unified site.
> > >>>>> - I don't have anything against Jira per se, but having it
> > >>>>> redirect
> > >>>>> to an IP is just unprofessional
> > >>>>> - SourceForge still feels like 1999. I really like Google
> > >>>>> Code, I
> > >>>>> dislike CodePlex, and GitHub is meh. But the decision should
> > >>>>> be made by
> > >>>>> those in charge of maintaining it.
> >
> > >>>>> Diego
> >
> > >>>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 08:03, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> Frans,
> > >>>>>> Git is more popular than hg. And we aren't considering
> > >>>>>> centralized SCM
> >
> > >>>>>> And yes, there is a HUGE difference between sending a patch and
> > >>>>>> sending a pull request.
> >
> > >>>>>> a) it is *significantly* easier to handle a pull request,
> > >>>>>> because it is a single command, rather than a set of operations
> > >>>>>> b) it allows you to have your own fork and easily merge future
> > >>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>> c) it means that Joe can pull from you, not just from the
> > >>>>>> master feed
> >
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> > I actually do have a problem with hg. I think that Git is:
> > >>>>>>> > a) more popular
> >
> > >>>>>>> than what, subversion? Perforce? CVS?
> >
> > >>>>>>> > b) GitHub has tremendous pull in terms of encouraging
> > >>>>>>> contributions.
> > >>>>>>> > c) I saw a huge spike in the amount of people contributing
> > >>>>>>> > once I
> > >>>>>>> moved to
> > >>>>>>> > github.
> >
> > >>>>>>> I have a hard time believing that the scc system used
> > >>>>>>> is of any relevance whether a developer is capable of
> > >>>>>>> contributing any code. I
> > >>>>>>> mean:
> > >>>>>>> it's not as if someone who changes some code in his own branch
> > >>>>>>> is suddenly able to commit those changes as well: the change
> > >>>>>>> has to be reviewed, tested, agreed upon and then it's
> > >>>>>>> committed. A svn patch is just as simple for that than any
> > >>>>>>> other patch.
> >
> > >>>>>>> I don't deny what you saw on ravendb stuff, I just find
> > >>>>>>> it a 'coincidence' rather than a correlated event.
> >
> > >>>>>>> FB
> >
> > >>>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Fabio Maulo
> > >>>>>>> > <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> > And move the code in CodePlex...
> >
> > >>>>>>> > --
> > >>>>>>> > Fabio Maulo
> >
> > >>>>>>> > El 02/11/2010, a las 16:38, Jorge <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>>> escribió:
> >
> > >>>>>>> > > Hello there,
> >
> > >>>>>>> > > I am in the process of downloading the code via SVN,
> > >>>>>>> > and it
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> > taking
> > >>>>>>> > > a very long time.
> >
> > >>>>>>> > > Can someone please enable Git repo in sourceforge,
> > >>>>>>> > or
> > >>>>>>> better yet,
> > >>>>>>> > move
> > >>>>>>> > > code to Github?
> >
> > >>>>>>> > > Respectfully yours,
> > >>>>>>> > > Jorge
> >
> > >>> --
> > >>> Fabio Maulo
> >
> > > --
> > > Fabio Maulo
> >
> > --
> > Fabio Maulo
