Re: Switch to github
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote: > He probably meant meant git (although then using github.com is a > logical choice). Well, he seems to have meant github, after all. > One of the reasons that switching to git makes sense is that > CVS is simply outdated. You mean outdated as in, say, bicycles and desktop PCs are outdated? That doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to change... > of technical differences that boil down to the fact that git > allows easy cooperation between (many) developers. Git also makes cooperation between few developers harder, especially in a tightly-knit team, which is the case for almost all the projects I am working on. > The workflow is well fleshed out and supported. The last few times I tried to adopt git I kept running into "functionality not yet implemented" messages or similar problems - git is far from beiong as stable or fleshed out as CVS. Maybe it's better supported, though, but then, I didn't need much of support for CVS in recent years. Git surely has more (and different) features, none of which are compelling or useful enough for us to outweigh the downsides so far. > CVS still does the job, but it is for example way harder to > work on a project with more than one maintainer; I think this is simply untrue, by personal experience. > Even if you think "I don't WANT other people to mess with > my project; I want to be in full control as the only God-developer" Don't be silly, if I wanted that I wouldn't give my projects such liberal licenses in the first place. > then still that is not really reason to fear git: it will STILL Are you fearing git? I know nobody else who talks about fear w.r.t. git. > be easier for you to maintain libev and review patch proposals, Well, it won't, as I already know, which makes your assertion a bit puzzling. > and you can still reject everything. At most the chance that > someone forks you, write a few awesome improves that you refuse > to merge and people start using their close instead of yours, > is slightly larger; Interesting, why would that be so? Honestly, some of your statements sound as if you made them up on the spot, without any backing evidence. > because through github it is easier to find people who cloned projects Some people (that includes me) find it unethical to force others to use non-free software, even if, in some rare cases, it might make my life easier (although overall, tghe opposite has been the case for me). That's why github would be about the worst choice. Also, personal experience with other such hosting services in the past has shown that I can provide a more stable and longer lasting hosting service than those, and, more importantly, a hosting service that I can control and fix. Keep in mind that I am around providing and hosting software for far longer than github, sourceforge, gitlab and so on. I would encourage people to make mirrors, of course, as it is unlikely that I can provide this forever (I don't know what happens when I die, for example), but from what I can see, github or similar services are more likely to go down than me, so mirrors would do some good, moving to github almost certainly wouldn't. > mother project didn't accept their pull requests. That would maybe > be bad for you, but it certainly isn't bad for the community ;) Not sure if it were bad for me (why?), but I am not sure why you think it is a good thing for me to adopt something that you claim is bad for me? > A little bit of competition is healthy (ie, in the above scenario > you'd probably decide to take the time to look at those awesome > new improvements and merge them into your repository, instead of > losing your client base). I'm not sure at all how git or github would somehow increase "competition" (between whom?). In any case, I find your mail be very thin on facts, and rather full of assertions, many of which I already know to be false. I think if I wouldn't be informed about git and githib already, your mail would turn me away as it seems to be more of a religious thing and less something rooted in facts (again, if I judged only from your mail). -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ ___ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
Re: Switch to github
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 19:54:37 +0200 Carlo Wood wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:03:13 +0200 > Marc Lehmann wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:30:21PM +0800, "jianhuizhao...@gmail.com" > > wrote: > > > It is recommended to switch from cvs to github. > > > > By whom? The evaluation of the FSF for example gave github the worst > > rating, an F. > > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html > > > > He probably meant meant git (although then using github.com is a > logical choice). > > One of the reasons that switching to git makes sense is that > CVS is simply outdated. I switched all my projects to git years > ago already. The reason that it is outdated is mostly because > of technical differences that boil down to the fact that git > allows easy cooperation between (many) developers. The workflow > is well fleshed out and supported. > > CVS still does the job, but it is for example way harder to > work on a project with more than one maintainer; mailing patches > is hardly something of this time. > > Even if you think "I don't WANT other people to mess with > my project; I want to be in full control as the only God-developer" > then still that is not really reason to fear git: it will STILL > be easier for you to maintain libev and review patch proposals, > and you can still reject everything. At most the chance that > someone forks you, write a few awesome improves that you refuse > to merge and people start using their close instead of yours, > is slightly larger; because through github it is easier to find > people who cloned projects - and their patches - even if the > mother project didn't accept their pull requests. That would maybe > be bad for you, but it certainly isn't bad for the community ;) > A little bit of competition is healthy (ie, in the above scenario > you'd probably decide to take the time to look at those awesome > new improvements and merge them into your repository, instead of > losing your client base). > > Regards, > Sigh typos... s/meant meant/meant/ s/the fact// a* reason writes* a few awesome improvements* start using their clone* -- Carlo Wood ___ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
Re: Switch to github
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:03:13 +0200 Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:30:21PM +0800, "jianhuizhao...@gmail.com" > wrote: > > It is recommended to switch from cvs to github. > > By whom? The evaluation of the FSF for example gave github the worst > rating, an F. > > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html > He probably meant meant git (although then using github.com is a logical choice). One of the reasons that switching to git makes sense is that CVS is simply outdated. I switched all my projects to git years ago already. The reason that it is outdated is mostly because of technical differences that boil down to the fact that git allows easy cooperation between (many) developers. The workflow is well fleshed out and supported. CVS still does the job, but it is for example way harder to work on a project with more than one maintainer; mailing patches is hardly something of this time. Even if you think "I don't WANT other people to mess with my project; I want to be in full control as the only God-developer" then still that is not really reason to fear git: it will STILL be easier for you to maintain libev and review patch proposals, and you can still reject everything. At most the chance that someone forks you, write a few awesome improves that you refuse to merge and people start using their close instead of yours, is slightly larger; because through github it is easier to find people who cloned projects - and their patches - even if the mother project didn't accept their pull requests. That would maybe be bad for you, but it certainly isn't bad for the community ;) A little bit of competition is healthy (ie, in the above scenario you'd probably decide to take the time to look at those awesome new improvements and merge them into your repository, instead of losing your client base). Regards, -- Carlo Wood ___ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
Re: Switch to github
On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 14:30 +0800, jianhuizhao...@gmail.com wrote: > It is recommended to switch from cvs to github. *Who* recommends that and *why*? Unless that is answered, the mail is somewhere between spam and pure trolling. MfG, Bernd PS: The above used passive form is in German actually the prime method saying "I want $XXX and cannot and/or will not explain it - just take it as a matter of fact qithout questioning and act on it". PPS: We all know what usually happens to trolls. -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : be...@tuxoid.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at ___ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
Re: Switch to github
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:30:21PM +0800, "jianhuizhao...@gmail.com" wrote: > It is recommended to switch from cvs to github. By whom? The evaluation of the FSF for example gave github the worst rating, an F. https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ ___ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
