Re: git-scm.com website (was: Promoting Git developers)
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It just does not look like a project home. Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people. Before it was created by Scott Chacon (and others) there was no landing page for users looking for information on Git. After it was created, nobody else stepped up with a better alternative. Writing a website is hard. I have been struggling to make a better landing page for Gerrit Code Review[1,2]. I really do understand why Git C hackers aren't interested in sitting down to write prose, HTML and CSS. Many of the folks that have contributed to git-scm.com don't usually contribute C code, but their contribution to the project has still been beneficial by providing a landing page. git-scm.com is controlled by the Git project through its membership with the Conservancy. It could be redirected to another site if another site existed that better served end-users and the project better. [1] http://code.google.com/p/gerrit [2] https://gerrit.googlesource.com/homepage/+doc/HEAD/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It just does not look like a project home. Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people. It features Companies Projects Using Git at the bottom. Not supporting but using. Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix. Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise for. Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me. It might make sense to reduce this list just to Projects since those are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether. At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb: This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub. Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to git-scm.com. [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
Hey, On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It just does not look like a project home. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make sure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the string GitHub occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it says This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub. I don't even mention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon referrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom Conservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It also very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's entirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally, since I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the eBook downloads). I'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a project home. It has basically all the same information on it that you would find on any other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads, source code, documentation, a book, community and development information, etc. These are basically all the same things found on sites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or https://subversion.apache.org/. It features Companies Projects Using Git at the bottom. Not supporting but using. Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix. Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise for. Well, there are 16 groups listed on that page and 10 are open source projects and the remaining 6 are large companies using Git and open sourcing things using it. The idea of the list is to give people new to Git confidence that it is widely adopted both in the open source and corporate worlds. I also am not sure what's embarrassing about these companies - they all heavily participate in the open source community and many of them sponsor development of projects like Linux and Git. Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me. I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought they were still a bzr shop. It might make sense to reduce this list just to Projects since those are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether. Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see some important corporations that are using it, since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large companies are participating in the open source community and it may help them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well, which I think is beneficial to everyone. Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
Scott Chacon scha...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me. I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought they were still a bzr shop. I don't know who you guys is, but it would be my guess that Stallman/FSF would not be enthused to see the Emacs logo added to that particular list. Emacs used Bzr particularly to promote an alternative to Git more open to the free software philosophy promoted by the FSF. Once Bzr development became non-responsive and Canonical turned it more into a Canonical-owned rather than a community project, it became sort of pointless to stick with a technically less popular choice. So Emacs fairly recently switched to Git. So it's sort of a screaming and kicking endorsement. Some people would claim that those are the best, but it does not really fit well with the spirit of this front page. It might make sense to reduce this list just to Projects since those are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether. Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see some important corporations that are using it, Where is the point if they don't see how or in what scale? since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large companies are participating in the open source community Uh no, it doesn't. Uses $x does not constitute participation. -- David Kastrup -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It just does not look like a project home. Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people. It features Companies Projects Using Git at the bottom. Not supporting but using. Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix. Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise for. Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me. It might make sense to reduce this list just to Projects since those are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether. At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb: This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub. Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to git-scm.com. Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot. I already understood that category B is subject to contempt. Congrats on being category A or C. [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing Turns out that anyone is actually anyone accepting the conditions for a GitHub account: If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub, push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request. I've read the rather longish TermsConditions of GitHub and found myself unwilling to agree to them. Which does not mean that changing the ways of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the Git community should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website programming. -- David Kastrup -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
Hey, On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com wrote: A few other points about git-scm.com: * as Michael says it still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was: https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216 (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not fixed...) It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it is maintained by us. If he had felt strongly about the addition, I easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was helpful in a larger sense. I try very hard to maintain a balance of simplicity and function. This site is mostly for people new to the project - it helps them see what Git is for, how to use it well and how to get involved. If you put everything you can into the site it makes it harder to find other things that may be more important. It's also important to remember that a home page is not really primarily for the people in this list. It's for the people who may one day be interested in this list and for the far greater number of people who want to use the end result of the hard work of the people on this list. It hopefully reduces the support and explanation style questions that might otherwise be sent to this list by helping to explain things before people resort to asking you all. It's meant to be a tool shielding you all from the introductory questions that would otherwise probably just annoy you. That all said, if someone is interested in helping with the maintenance and going over these pull requests, I'm more than happy to give them access, but I really want to maintain the simplicity and professional sense of design that we've worked very hard to maintain. Not every patch that works that comes to Junio is accepted and not every pull request that comes into the site will be merged for the same reason - we want to maintain the quality and utility of the resource. There have been 157 merged pull requests from the community in the past year or so, 13 of which were from the author you're mentioning in this example. You pointed to the one pull request out of 14 total patches from Peff that was not merged. It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can be rejected because it is not maintained by us. Again, if you can point to a GitHub logo on any page of the website, I would love to see it. And Pro Git is free and read by hundreds of thousands of people day all over the world and available in dozens of languages in multiple ebook formats. I would remove the Amazon links if anyone wishes, but the SFC gets income from it, so I doubt they would want to. Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:37 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It just does not look like a project home. Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people. It features Companies Projects Using Git at the bottom. Not supporting but using. Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix. Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise for. Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me. It might make sense to reduce this list just to Projects since those are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether. At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb: This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub. Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to git-scm.com. Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot. I already understood that category B is subject to contempt. Congrats on being category A or C. [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing Turns out that anyone is actually anyone accepting the conditions for a GitHub account: If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub, push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request. I've read the rather longish TermsConditions of GitHub and found myself unwilling to agree to them. Which does not mean that changing the ways of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the Git community should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website programming. A few other points about git-scm.com: * as Michael says it still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was: https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216 (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not fixed...) It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can be rejected because it is not maintained by us. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large companies are participating in the open source community Uh no, it doesn't. Uses $x does not constitute participation. I am unsure what the intend of the site is or should be? Do we want to convince other people to use it as in everybody else uses it, so should you or rather point out you can participate in the (development-) community as in we got contributions from these companies and projects, you could also steer git in a direction you want by participating? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Scott Chacon scha...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me. I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought they were still a bzr shop. I don't know who you guys is, but it would be my guess that Stallman/FSF would not be enthused to see the Emacs logo added to that particular list. Emacs used Bzr particularly to promote an alternative to Git more open to the free software philosophy promoted by the FSF. Once Bzr development became non-responsive and Canonical turned it more into a Canonical-owned rather than a community project, it became sort of pointless to stick with a technically less popular choice. So Emacs fairly recently switched to Git. I might add that the abysmal performance of git-blame on Emacs' src/xdisp.c was given as one fairly important argument against switching to Git, and in consequence I promised to take a look at it. Git runs about a factor of 4 faster on src/xdisp.c now, but I can safely say that I consider letting myself get involved here a rather expensive mistake. Live and learn. -- David Kastrup -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
Hi, David Kastrup wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site, I think that's the basic problem here. With all due respect: I don't actually see a major problem here. Any serious problems with the site can be fixed by people submitting patches, either using Github's UI or to the mailing list if Github's UI doesn't work for them. People can also try mocking up an alternative site if they have a radical change they'd like to try, and the centrally managed DNS entry points to whichever site is appropriate. The old git website was git.or.cz. That redirects to git-scm.com now. You can see the old front page at git.or.cz/index.html (and there is a link to the corresponding git repository near the bottom). People with spare time who find content on that site to migrate over are welcome to try doing so (hint, hint). Thanks, Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site, I think that's the basic problem here. As long as people want to _have_ an alternate site rather than want to _write_ and _maintain_ an alternate site, any site will only be as representative of the Git community as the person(s) working on the site feel they are representative of the Git community. Scott says that he tried his best to create a neutral site, and that's what the site is. When a guardian votes instead of his ward in an election, he might vote different from his own vote in order to better reflect the interest of his ward. It may still well be different from who the ward would have voted for. For me, the Git-scm site has the air of a third-party site, and that's what it is essentially. I don't see that Scott could do any better here when basically left on his own and it seems pointless to complain to him about that. That is one case where the central repository approach has at least some psychological advantage over the one personal repository is what is considered canonical approach used by the Linux kernel, Git, the Git-scm site and possibly by most of the GitHub hosted projects: with a central repository, there is somewhat less of a feeling that one person owns the project (even admin rights come into play only for exceptional circumstances rather than everyday work). Possibly that makes it a bit harder to say not my field of responsibility. -- David Kastrup -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: git-scm.com website
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:52:34AM -0700, Scott Chacon wrote: * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was: https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216 (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not fixed...) It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it is maintained by us. If he had felt strongly about the addition, I easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was helpful in a larger sense. Yes, this. It was _my_ pull request, and as I noted in my final comment, I agreed with closing it. That is not rejected, but withdrawn. If somebody wants to open their own pull request, they can. But it has been over 2 years, and I haven't seen anybody talk about this, let alone offer to work on it. If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site, especially one targeted at Git _developers_, I don't see a reason not to. http://git.github.io is where I have been collecting GSoC materials, and any community member who asks is welcome to have push access (and I have offered to apply patches for people who do not want to use GitHub). But aside from that GSoC content, there is nothing there (and the design is awful; any takers?). There is also the wiki at http://git.wiki.kernel.org. I prefer the git.github.io site, because it is easier to manipulate using git, but if having both is fracturing things, I'd be happy to shut it down. So if anyone wants to contribute to Git's web presence, it seems there are quite a few opportunities to do so. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
