Re: main url for linking to git source?

[brian m. carlson]

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 10:46:58PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:51:30AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > I think I would also prefer a list of available repositories over a
> > hard-coded choice.  It may be that some places (say, Australia) have
> > better bandwidth to one over the other, and users will be able to have a
> > better experience with certain mirrors.
> > 
> > While I'm sympathetic to the idea of referring to kernel.org because
> > it's open-source and non-profit, users outside of North America are
> > likely to have a less stellar experience with its mirrors, since they're
> > all in North America.
> 
> I'm a bit worried that I'll come across as some kind of annoying pedant,
> but git.kernel.org is actually 6 different systems available in US,
> Europe, Hong Kong, and Australia. :)

That is very interesting to know.  Perhaps it would be useful to update
https://www.kernel.org/category/about.html?

I did specifically look to see where various mirrors' servers were
located, although I didn't actually test for kernel.org since you
specified on the website.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Kaartic Sivaraam]

On Monday 07 May 2018 11:45 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> I could see arguments both ways, so I thought I'd take a straw poll of
>> what people on the list think.
>  
> Junios reply below focuses on the URL passed to git-clone, which
> is only found at https://git-scm.com/downloads (?)
> 
> There I would try to mirror Junios list of "public repositories"
> https://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html
> without officially endorsing one over another.
>
FWIW, I also seem to support this suggestion as it's not opinionated.


> For those links that link to web pages, I am ok with any of the
> hosting providers, maybe even taking the one with the prettiest
> web page. Maybe we want to reword those sections to rely
> more on indirection, e.g. "get the source[link to the source page],
> checkout the next branch", without the quick web link to a web page
> showing the 'next' tree.

Seems to be a nice suggestion to avoid the "main/official" url issue.

To add a little more, it might be better replace the "Source code" link
with a link to Junio's list of public repositories stated above. Also,
it might be better to rename the link to "Public repositories containing
the source".


-- 
Sivaraam

QUOTE:

“The most valuable person on any team is the person who makes everyone
else on the team more valuable, not the person who knows the most.”

  - Joel Spolsky


Sivaraam?

You possibly might have noticed that my signature recently changed from
'Kaartic' to 'Sivaraam' both of which are parts of my name. I find the
new signature to be better for several reasons one of which is that the
former signature has a lot of ambiguities in the place I live as it is a
common name (NOTE: it's not a common spelling, just a common name). So,
I switched signatures before it's too late.

That said, I won't mind you calling me 'Kaartic' if you like it [of
course ;-)]. You can always call me using either of the names.


KIND NOTE TO THE NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER:

As I'm not a native English speaker myself, there might be mistaeks in
my usage of English. I apologise for any mistakes that I make.

It would be "helpful" if you take the time to point out the mistakes.

It would be "super helpful" if you could provide suggestions about how
to correct those mistakes.

Thanks in advance!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Junio C Hamano]

Konstantin Ryabitsev  writes:

> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:51:30AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>>
>> I think I would also prefer a list of available repositories over a
>> hard-coded choice.  It may be that some places (say, Australia) have
>> better bandwidth to one over the other, and users will be able to have a
>> better experience with certain mirrors.
>> 
>> While I'm sympathetic to the idea of referring to kernel.org because
>> it's open-source and non-profit, users outside of North America are
>> likely to have a less stellar experience with its mirrors, since they're
>> all in North America.
>
> I'm a bit worried that I'll come across as some kind of annoying pedant,
> but git.kernel.org is actually 6 different systems available in US,
> Europe, Hong Kong, and Australia. :)
>
> We use geodns to map users to the nearest server (I know, GeoDNS is not
> the best, but it's what we have for free).

Thanks for an update---it is nice to make those who are discussing
this topic to be aware of these facts.  Very much appreciated.

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:51:30AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 11:15:46AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > There I would try to mirror Junios list of "public repositories"
> > https://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html
> > without officially endorsing one over another.
> 
> I think I would also prefer a list of available repositories over a
> hard-coded choice.  It may be that some places (say, Australia) have
> better bandwidth to one over the other, and users will be able to have a
> better experience with certain mirrors.
> 
> While I'm sympathetic to the idea of referring to kernel.org because
> it's open-source and non-profit, users outside of North America are
> likely to have a less stellar experience with its mirrors, since they're
> all in North America.

I'm a bit worried that I'll come across as some kind of annoying pedant,
but git.kernel.org is actually 6 different systems available in US,
Europe, Hong Kong, and Australia. :)

We use geodns to map users to the nearest server (I know, GeoDNS is not
the best, but it's what we have for free).

-K



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[brian m. carlson]

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 11:15:46AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> There I would try to mirror Junios list of "public repositories"
> https://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html
> without officially endorsing one over another.

I think I would also prefer a list of available repositories over a
hard-coded choice.  It may be that some places (say, Australia) have
better bandwidth to one over the other, and users will be able to have a
better experience with certain mirrors.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of referring to kernel.org because
it's open-source and non-profit, users outside of North America are
likely to have a less stellar experience with its mirrors, since they're
all in North America.

I would suggest that whatever option we choose, we only specify HTTPS or
SSH (i.e., encrypted) protocols.  Encryption is cheap, and we have lots
of options meeting that criterion.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Stefan Beller]

Hi Jeff,

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Jeff King  wrote:
> 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.

That PR is changing quite a few places, so in classic Git community
fashion, I advise to break it up into more patches. ;)

Junios reply below focuses on the URL passed to git-clone, which
is only found at https://git-scm.com/downloads (?)

There I would try to mirror Junios list of "public repositories"
https://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html
without officially endorsing one over another.

For those links that link to web pages, I am ok with any of the
hosting providers, maybe even taking the one with the prettiest
web page. Maybe we want to reword those sections to rely
more on indirection, e.g. "get the source[link to the source page],
checkout the next branch", without the quick web link to a web page
showing the 'next' tree. Any of the pages with the 'next' tree
do not really help for the purpose of spotting which development
is currently happening. Maybe a "log --merges" would be better.
Something like https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git/+log/next
(Not that I am endorsing this link over others. I just happen to know
that this comes close to what I propose having there)

Kernel.org might feel a bit more official than the others because
Linus started it there? And given that it is a non profit, I feel
better to link to them over any other commercial entity.

Hope that helps,
Stefan

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On 05/07/18 07:38, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> 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 don't really care about "official" vs "commercial", as kernel.org is
> also run by a business, so it is all "commercial" to me.

Kernel.org is a registered US non-profit organization, managed by a
non-profit industry consortium (The Linux Foundation). The entire stack
behind kernel.org is free software, excepting any firmware blobs on the
physical hardware.

I'm not trying to influence anyone's opinion of where the links should
be pointing at, but it's important to point out that kernel.org and
GitHub serve different purposes:

- kernel.org provides free-as-in-liberty archive hosting on a platform
that is not locked into any vendor.

- github.com provides an integrated development infrastructure that is
fully closed-source, excepting the protocols.

Best,
-- 
Konstantin Ryabitsev
Director, IT Infrastructure Security
The Linux Foundation



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Junio C Hamano]

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.

Re: main url for linking to git source?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Peff,

On Mon, 7 May 2018, Jeff King wrote:

> 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 don't really care about "official" vs "commercial", as kernel.org is
also run by a business, so it is all "commercial" to me.

Personally, I prefer the GitHub interface. A *lot*. Why?

- it is faster

- it is prettier

- you can fork easily

- it also has the Continuous Integration, well, integrated

- it is a lot easier to link to individual commits/files/lines

- the links are *a lot* nicer

- you can provide a /compare/A...B link to a specific, possibly
  dynamic commit range

I do not have anything against listing kernel.org, *in addition*. But
kernel.org is just simply so much more limited, and less pretty, so I
really think that the PR is misguided and would do more harm than good.

Ciao,
Dscho

main url for linking to git source?

[Jeff King]

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