"H. S. Teoh" <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.902.1337292243.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > [...] >> Have you ever heard of, or even read, "Hugi Magazine"? ( >> http://www.hugi.scene.org/main.php?page=hugi ). It has interesting >> content, but the format is absolutely moronic: Instead of coming in >> PDF or HTML or even DOC or dead-tree, it comes in *EXE* form. That's >> right. So you can't use your choice of viewer, and you can't even read >> it on another device without them actually *porting* the fucking >> issue. >> >> GitHub/BitBucket/etc (along with 90% of "Web 2.0" and "cloud"), are >> very, very much like Hugi. And yet somehow, people seem to think it's >> a fantastic *advancement*. Bleh. > [...] > > Is it really _that_ bad? GitHub does support directly running git > pull/push, clone, etc. just by specifying the URL. If you want to send > somebody a pull request, you could just put your repo on any git hosting > service (or run your own), and email the relevant people the URL to your > repo. Then they can just run git pull $url and that's that.
Well no, it's not *that* bad (that's why I said "very much like" rather then "the same as"), but it's along the same general lines - just not quite as far. > > Though you do have a point that a standard protocol for pull requests, > issue tracking, etc., would be nice. If git was extended to have, say, > discussion tracking for pull requests, then people can actually discuss > your requests in a hosting-independent way, and you can, e.g., run 'git > pull discuss --client=mutt' to read discussions via Mutt or whatever > your favorite non-dumb mail/news reader is. But this is more a > limitation of the current git protocol than the fault of any of the > present hosting systems. Right, exactly. > You could, y'know, send pull requests to the > upstream git source to rectify this situation... ;-) > That means I'd have to actually find the time to write them ;) (and deal with C/Pyton/etc... Yuck!) Thing is though, these features have *already* been created, *multiple* times, by multiple groups of people. And yet, every single time, it was done basically the wrong way. That bugs me. ;) But you're right, the solution is for someone to actually *make* the "right" solution. My main point for now though, was just to at least get across the idea of what the "right" way even *is* and why it's better. It's only a small first step, but a necessary first step. > -- > Creativity is not an excuse for sloppiness. Heh :)
