{"thread":{"id":"38764","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website (was: Promoting Git developers)","startedAt":"2015-03-09T15:51:02Z","lastAt":"2015-03-10T09:07:39Z","messageCount":15,"participants":["Shawn Pearce","David Kastrup","Christian Couder","Scott Chacon","Stefan Beller","Jeff King","Jonathan Nieder","Michael J Gruber"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"257406","messageId":"CAJo=hJsbbfK-_qX6sg3Azk30Kz5ebLfyMbVF98VzHZe8YyaLcQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: git-scm.com website (was: Promoting Git developers)","fromName":"Shawn Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T15:51:02Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T15:51:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n wrote:\n>\n> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n\nYes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.\n\nBefore it was created by Scott Chacon (and others) there was no\nlanding page for users looking for information on Git.\n\nAfter it was created, nobody else stepped up with a better alternative.\n\nWriting a website is hard. I have been struggling to make a better\nlanding page for Gerrit Code Review[1,2]. I really do understand why\nGit C hackers aren't interested in sitting down to write prose, HTML\nand CSS.\n\nMany of the folks that have contributed to git-scm.com don't usually\ncontribute C code, but their contribution to the project has still\nbeen beneficial by providing a landing page.\n\n\ngit-scm.com is controlled by the Git project through its membership\nwith the Conservancy. It could be redirected to another site if\nanother site existed that better served end-users and the project\nbetter.\n\n\n[1] http://code.google.com/p/gerrit\n[2] https://gerrit.googlesource.com/homepage/+doc/HEAD/\n"},{"id":"257407","messageId":"87y4n6kvdu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAJo=hJsbbfK-_qX6sg3Azk30Kz5ebLfyMbVF98VzHZe8YyaLcQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T16:06:53Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T16:06:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Shawn Pearce writes:\n\n> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n> wrote:\n>>\n>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n>> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n>\n> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.\n\nIt features \"Companies & Projects Using Git\" at the bottom. Not\n\"supporting\" but \"using\".\n\nLinux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,\nMicrosoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.\n\nEven for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software\nphilosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise\nfor.\n\nPersonally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\nGit a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n\nIt might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since those\nare actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"257408","messageId":"CAJo=hJt_PHMEdpfRA0EKQyoH4XhYh89tvajewM28pgxzZ9ONMg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"87y4n6kvdu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Shawn Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T16:19:28Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T16:19:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n> Shawn Pearce writes:\n>\n>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n>> wrote:\n>>>\n>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n>>> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n>>\n>> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.\n>\n> It features \"Companies & Projects Using Git\" at the bottom. Not\n> \"supporting\" but \"using\".\n>\n> Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,\n> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.\n>\n> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software\n> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise\n> for.\n>\n> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\n> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n>\n> It might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since those\n> are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.\n\nAt the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:\n\n This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.\n Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome\n\nAnd that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone\ncan propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of\nanyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to\ngit-scm.com.\n\n\n[1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing\n"},{"id":"257409","messageId":"87twxuktzc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAJo=hJt_PHMEdpfRA0EKQyoH4XhYh89tvajewM28pgxzZ9ONMg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T16:37:11Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T16:37:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Shawn Pearce writes:\n\n> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> Shawn Pearce writes:\n>>\n>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n>>> wrote:\n>>>>\n>>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n>>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n>>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n>>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n>>>> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n>>>\n>>> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.\n>>\n>> It features \"Companies & Projects Using Git\" at the bottom. Not\n>> \"supporting\" but \"using\".\n>>\n>> Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,\n>> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.\n>>\n>> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software\n>> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise\n>> for.\n>>\n>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\n>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n>>\n>> It might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since those\n>> are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.\n>\n> At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:\n>\n> This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.\n> Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome\n>\n> And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone\n> can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of\n> anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to\n> git-scm.com.\n\nYeah, thanks for the cheap shot. I already understood that category B\nis subject to contempt. Congrats on being category A or C.\n\n> [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing\n\nTurns out that \"anyone\" is actually \"anyone accepting the conditions for\na GitHub account\":\n\n If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub,\n push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request.\n\nI've read the rather longish Terms&Conditions of GitHub and found myself\nunwilling to agree to them. Which does not mean that changing the ways\nof contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any\nsense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the \"Git\ncommunity\" should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to\nmake a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website\nprogramming.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"257415","messageId":"CAP8UFD1y86wqg5fpRn1wsMnn8JT9KXuDMgzcseH=sv8NBWO6wA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"87twxuktzc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-09T17:12:30Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T17:12:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:\n> Shawn Pearce writes:\n>\n>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>>> Shawn Pearce writes:\n>>>\n>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n>>>> wrote:\n>>>>>\n>>>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n>>>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n>>>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n>>>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n>>>>> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n>>>>\n>>>> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.\n>>>\n>>> It features \"Companies & Projects Using Git\" at the bottom. Not\n>>> \"supporting\" but \"using\".\n>>>\n>>> Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,\n>>> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.\n>>>\n>>> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software\n>>> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise\n>>> for.\n>>>\n>>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\n>>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n>>>\n>>> It might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since those\n>>> are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.\n>>\n>> At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:\n>>\n>> This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.\n>> Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome\n>>\n>> And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone\n>> can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of\n>> anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to\n>> git-scm.com.\n>\n> Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot. I already understood that category B\n> is subject to contempt. Congrats on being category A or C.\n>\n>> [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing\n>\n> Turns out that \"anyone\" is actually \"anyone accepting the conditions for\n> a GitHub account\":\n>\n> If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub,\n> push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request.\n>\n> I've read the rather longish Terms&Conditions of GitHub and found myself\n> unwilling to agree to them. Which does not mean that changing the ways\n> of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any\n> sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the \"Git\n> community\" should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to\n> make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website\n> programming.\n\nA few other points about git-scm.com:\n\n* as Michael says it \"still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site\"\n\n* some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want\nthem, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:\n\nhttps://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216\n\n(By the way this pull request talks about bugs in\nhttps://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not\nfixed...)\n\nIt is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site\nthat promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can\nbe rejected because it is not maintained by us.\n"},{"id":"257416","messageId":"CAP2yMa+Bw0KCSz9YEtviZUykAp4jpdsEWSK-jRxtd9MjzjHKfg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"87y4n6kvdu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Scott Chacon","fromEmail":"schacon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-09T17:14:43Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T17:14:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"schacon@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9b13a8a078e1dcf8588c4eea9554445d51ebed6c41b51f56f4d96738130b05c6?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hey,\n\nOn Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n> > wrote:\n> >>\n> >> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n> >> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n> >> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n> >> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n> >> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n\nI'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make\nsure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the\nstring \"GitHub\" occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it\nsays \"This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.\" I don't even\nmention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon\nreferrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom\nConservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It\nalso very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's\nentirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally,\nsince I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the\neBook downloads).\n\nI'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a \"project home\". It\nhas basically all the same information on it that you would find on\nany other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads,\nsource code, documentation, a book, community and development\ninformation, etc. These are basically all the same things found on\nsites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or\nhttps://subversion.apache.org/.\n\n>\n> It features \"Companies & Projects Using Git\" at the bottom. Not\n> \"supporting\" but \"using\".\n>\n> Linux is point 10 on that list. The first 6 items are Google, facebook,\n> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.\n>\n> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software\n> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise\n> for.\n\nWell, there are 16 groups listed on that page and 10 are open source\nprojects and the remaining 6 are large companies using Git and open\nsourcing things using it. The idea of the list is to give people new\nto Git confidence that it is widely adopted both in the open source\nand corporate worlds. I also am not sure what's \"embarrassing\" about\nthese companies - they all heavily participate in the open source\ncommunity and many of them sponsor development of projects like Linux\nand Git.\n\n>\n> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\n> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n\nI would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me\nto add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought\nthey were still a bzr shop.\n\n>\n> It might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since those\n> are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.\n\nSorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see\nsome important corporations that are using it, since many people\ncoming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to\nswitch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large\ncompanies are participating in the open source community and it may\nhelp them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well,\nwhich I think is beneficial to everyone.\n\nScott\n"},{"id":"257417","messageId":"CAGZ79kY_Kb63C6fKeHHx52sEn8j-Ho62-dh97-J8irhjGxaBqA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAP2yMa+Bw0KCSz9YEtviZUykAp4jpdsEWSK-jRxtd9MjzjHKfg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2015-03-09T17:30:48Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T17:30:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Scott Chacon wrote:\n> >\n> > It might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since those\n> > are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it altogether.\n> Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see\n> some important corporations that are using it, since many people\n> coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to\n> switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large\n> companies are participating in the open source community and it may\n> help them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well,\n> which I think is beneficial to everyone.\n\nYeah I'd agree on that. I'd even go a step further and claim it would be best\nto show projects and companies coming from most different branches of\nbusiness.\n\n(\"Can I switch my business over to Git? Oh well only these internet hacker\ncompanies are using it, I -as an air drier firmware writer shop-\ncannot relate to,\nso I keep using RCS.\")\n\nAlso looking at the open source projects, most of them seem to me as\nlarge-ish umbrella projects, so a smaller(?) project like emacs would be\nhuge win to show off Git can work well with all kinds of projects.\n"},{"id":"257418","messageId":"87lhj6kqng.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAP2yMa+Bw0KCSz9YEtviZUykAp4jpdsEWSK-jRxtd9MjzjHKfg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T17:49:07Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T17:49:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Scott Chacon writes:\n\n> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\n>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n>\n> I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me\n> to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought\n> they were still a bzr shop.\n\nI don't know who \"you guys\" is, but it would be my guess that\nStallman/FSF would not be enthused to see the Emacs logo added to that\nparticular list.\n\nEmacs used Bzr particularly to promote an alternative to Git more open\nto the free software philosophy promoted by the FSF. Once Bzr\ndevelopment became non-responsive and Canonical turned it more into a\nCanonical-owned rather than a community project, it became sort of\npointless to stick with a technically less popular choice.\n\nSo Emacs fairly recently switched to Git.\n\nSo it's sort of a screaming and kicking endorsement. Some people would\nclaim that those are the best, but it does not really fit well with the\nspirit of this front page.\n\n>> It might make sense to reduce this list just to \"Projects\" since\n>> those are actually more tangible and verifiable. Or scrap it\n>> altogether.\n>\n> Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see\n> some important corporations that are using it,\n\nWhere is the point if they don't see how or in what scale?\n\n> since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out\n> if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates\n> that these large companies are participating in the open source\n> community\n\nUh no, it doesn't. \"Uses $x\" does not constitute participation.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"257419","messageId":"CAP2yMaJWLppUw2QY3rL7dZPaqVUf6G-UYVrvi35A_t03ow6E_w@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD1y86wqg5fpRn1wsMnn8JT9KXuDMgzcseH=sv8NBWO6wA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Scott Chacon","fromEmail":"schacon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-09T17:52:34Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T17:52:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"schacon@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9b13a8a078e1dcf8588c4eea9554445d51ebed6c41b51f56f4d96738130b05c6?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hey,\n\nOn Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Christian Couder\n wrote:\n> A few other points about git-scm.com:\n>\n> * as Michael says it \"still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site\"\n>\n> * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want\n> them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:\n>\n> https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216\n>\n> (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in\n> https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not\n> fixed...)\n>\n\nIt should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I\nthink the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it\nis maintained \"by us\". If he had felt strongly about the addition, I\neasily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was\nhelpful in a larger sense.\n\nI try very hard to maintain a balance of simplicity and function. This\nsite is mostly for people new to the project - it helps them see what\nGit is for, how to use it well and how to get involved. If you put\neverything you can into the site it makes it harder to find other\nthings that may be more important.\n\nIt's also important to remember that a home page is not really\nprimarily for the people in this list. It's for the people who may one\nday be interested in this list and for the far greater number of\npeople who want to use the end result of the hard work of the people\non this list. It hopefully reduces the support and explanation style\nquestions that might otherwise be sent to this list by helping to\nexplain things before people resort to asking you all. It's meant to\nbe a tool shielding you all from the introductory questions that would\notherwise probably just annoy you.\n\nThat all said, if someone is interested in helping with the\nmaintenance and going over these pull requests, I'm more than happy to\ngive them access, but I really want to maintain the simplicity and\nprofessional sense of design that we've worked very hard to maintain.\nNot every patch that works that comes to Junio is accepted and not\nevery pull request that comes into the site will be merged for the\nsame reason - we want to maintain the quality and utility of the\nresource. There have been 157 merged pull requests from the community\nin the past year or so, 13 of which were from the author you're\nmentioning in this example. You pointed to the one pull request out of\n14 total patches from Peff that was not merged.\n\n> It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site\n> that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can\n> be rejected because it is not maintained by us.\n\nAgain, if you can point to a GitHub logo on any page of the website, I\nwould love to see it. And Pro Git is free and read by hundreds of\nthousands of people day all over the world and available in dozens of\nlanguages in multiple ebook formats. I would remove the Amazon links\nif anyone wishes, but the SFC gets income from it, so I doubt they\nwould want to.\n\nScott\n"},{"id":"257420","messageId":"CAGZ79kZx1LRhiJacG9oNnpRSmG40jyp48AqC+3M7bt0hkbVdEA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"87lhj6kqng.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2015-03-09T17:54:33Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T17:54:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out\n>> if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates\n>> that these large companies are participating in the open source\n>> community\n>\n> Uh no, it doesn't. \"Uses $x\" does not constitute participation.\n>\n\nI am unsure what the intend of the site is or should be?\n\nDo we want to convince other people to use it as in \"everybody\nelse uses it, so should you\" or rather point out you can participate\nin the (development-) community as in \"we got contributions from\nthese companies and projects, you could also steer git in a direction\nyou want by participating?\"\n"},{"id":"257421","messageId":"87h9tukq0m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"87lhj6kqng.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T18:02:49Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T18:02:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"David Kastrup writes:\n\n> Scott Chacon writes:\n>\n>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to\n>>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.\n>>\n>> I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me\n>> to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought\n>> they were still a bzr shop.\n>\n> I don't know who \"you guys\" is, but it would be my guess that\n> Stallman/FSF would not be enthused to see the Emacs logo added to that\n> particular list.\n>\n> Emacs used Bzr particularly to promote an alternative to Git more open\n> to the free software philosophy promoted by the FSF. Once Bzr\n> development became non-responsive and Canonical turned it more into a\n> Canonical-owned rather than a community project, it became sort of\n> pointless to stick with a technically less popular choice.\n>\n> So Emacs fairly recently switched to Git.\n\nI might add that the abysmal performance of git-blame on Emacs'\nsrc/xdisp.c was given as one fairly important argument against switching\nto Git, and in consequence I promised to take a look at it. Git runs\nabout a factor of 4 faster on src/xdisp.c now, but I can safely say that\nI consider letting myself get involved here a rather expensive mistake.\n\nLive and learn.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"257424","messageId":"20150309192409.GA4733@peff.net","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAP2yMaJWLppUw2QY3rL7dZPaqVUf6G-UYVrvi35A_t03ow6E_w@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2015-03-09T19:24:10Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T19:24:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:52:34AM -0700, Scott Chacon wrote:\n\n> > * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want\n> > them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:\n> >\n> > https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216\n> >\n> > (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in\n> > https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not\n> > fixed...)\n> >\n> \n> It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I\n> think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it\n> is maintained \"by us\". If he had felt strongly about the addition, I\n> easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was\n> helpful in a larger sense.\n\nYes, this. It was _my_ pull request, and as I noted in my final comment,\nI agreed with closing it. That is not \"rejected\", but \"withdrawn\".\n\nIf somebody wants to open their own pull request, they can. But it has\nbeen over 2 years, and I haven't seen anybody talk about this, let alone\noffer to work on it.\n\nIf people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,\nespecially one targeted at Git _developers_, I don't see a reason not\nto. http://git.github.io is where I have been collecting GSoC materials,\nand any community member who asks is welcome to have push access (and I\nhave offered to apply patches for people who do not want to use GitHub).\nBut aside from that GSoC content, there is nothing there (and the design\nis awful; any takers?).\n\nThere is also the wiki at http://git.wiki.kernel.org. I prefer the\ngit.github.io site, because it is easier to manipulate using git, but if\nhaving both is fracturing things, I'd be happy to shut it down.\n\nSo if anyone wants to contribute to Git's web presence, it seems there\nare quite a few opportunities to do so.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"257426","messageId":"878uf5lyad.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"20150309192409.GA4733@peff.net","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2015-03-09T20:18:50Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T20:18:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n> If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,\n\nI think that's the basic problem here. As long as people want to _have_\nan alternate site rather than want to _write_ and _maintain_ an\nalternate site, any site will only be as representative of the Git\ncommunity as the person(s) working on the site feel they are\nrepresentative of the Git community.\n\nScott says that he tried his best to create a neutral site, and that's\nwhat the site is. When a guardian votes instead of his ward in an\nelection, he might vote different from his own vote in order to better\nreflect the interest of his ward. It may still well be different from\nwho the ward would have voted for.\n\nFor me, the Git-scm site has the air of a third-party site, and that's\nwhat it is essentially. I don't see that Scott could do any better here\nwhen basically left on his own and it seems pointless to complain to him\nabout that.\n\nThat is one case where the \"central repository\" approach has at least\nsome psychological advantage over the \"one personal repository is what\nis considered canonical\" approach used by the Linux kernel, Git, the\nGit-scm site and possibly by most of the GitHub hosted projects: with a\ncentral repository, there is somewhat less of a feeling that one person\n\"owns\" the project (even admin rights come into play only for\nexceptional circumstances rather than everyday work). Possibly that\nmakes it a bit harder to say \"not my field of responsibility\".\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"257431","messageId":"20150309210707.GC5535@google.com","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"878uf5lyad.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2015-03-09T21:07:07Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-09T21:07:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nDavid Kastrup wrote:\n> Jeff King writes:\n\n>> If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,\n>\n> I think that's the basic problem here.\n\nWith all due respect:\n\nI don't actually see a major problem here. Any serious problems with\nthe site can be fixed by people submitting patches, either using\nGithub's UI or to the mailing list if Github's UI doesn't work for\nthem. People can also try mocking up an alternative site if they have\na radical change they'd like to try, and the centrally managed DNS\nentry points to whichever site is appropriate.\n\nThe old git website was git.or.cz. That redirects to git-scm.com now.\nYou can see the old front page at git.or.cz/index.html (and there is a\nlink to the corresponding git repository near the bottom). People\nwith spare time who find content on that site to migrate over are\nwelcome to try doing so (hint, hint).\n\nThanks,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"257453","messageId":"54FEB45B.3020601@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"38764","inReplyTo":"CAP2yMa+Bw0KCSz9YEtviZUykAp4jpdsEWSK-jRxtd9MjzjHKfg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-scm.com website","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2015-03-10T09:07:39Z","receivedAt":"2015-03-10T09:07:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Scott Chacon venit, vidit, dixit 09.03.2015 18:14:\n> Hey,\n> \n> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:\n>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber\n>>> wrote:\n>>>>\n>>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a\n>>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and\n>>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking\n>>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It\n>>>> just does not look like a \"project home\".\n> \n> I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make\n> sure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the\n> string \"GitHub\" occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it\n> says \"This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.\" I don't even\n> mention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon\n> referrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom\n> Conservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It\n> also very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's\n> entirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally,\n> since I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the\n> eBook downloads).\n> \n> I'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a \"project home\". It\n> has basically all the same information on it that you would find on\n> any other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads,\n> source code, documentation, a book, community and development\n> information, etc. These are basically all the same things found on\n> sites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or\n> https://subversion.apache.org/.\n\nSince quotes from several people got put together here and below (which\nI cut out), I'd just like to reemphasize that I \"don't have anything\nagainst either\", as I wrote. Github has done a lot to promote Git - as a\nbusiness, sure, but why not, and Git as a project has profited from\nthat, too. It goes without saying that stating \"Hosted on Github\" is\nappropriate, not just because git-scm.com is hosted there, but because\nit shows what kind of services Git empowers.\nAnd I don't mind a listing of companies that use Git - it's not an\nendorsement of those companies, rather the other way round. (I hope it's\nlegally OK to use their names and logos for that, I'm not a laywer, but\nI'm confident you've checked.)\n\n\"This is the web application for the git-scm.com site. It is meant to be\nthe first place a person new to Git will land and download or learn\nabout the Git SCM system.\" says the README, and that's what the site is.\nA landing page for people new to Git. It's good that we have one.\n\nMaybe my use of the term \"project home\" was misleading. What I meant is:\nit's not a home *for* the developer community. That's just a factual\nstatement without assigning blame. For example, Documentation/technical\nis not linked there, and the blog doesn't carry release announcements or\nJunio's technical posts. Development discussions take place on the\nmailing list, and when we talk about user experience, it's UI and man\npages that we have in mind, not git-scm.com. When we need a web page for\nGSoC or such, it's \"something on github\" that at least mentally is not\npart of git-scm.com.\n\nNow, unfortunately, git-scm.com is also not *from* the developer\ncommunity, if you define \"developer := git ml regular\" (and not :=\nmostly not) and look at\nhttps://github.com/git/git-scm.com/graphs/contributors. There's probably\nno point in going into the historical reasons for that - after all,\nwe're not all German ;)\n\nSeriously, I think \"we\" could try to put more stuff on git-scm.com.\nHaving GSoC and microprojects stuff ported there would be nice, I guess\nthat would require someone who knows a bit about the underlying web app\nto get the framework right.\n\nMaybe there's a painless way to get release announcements or similar\nposts on the blog, so that there is more visible activity? Or collect\nsome external blogs?\n\nI'm a no-ruby-no-rails guy, sorry, but I'll commit at least to looking\nover some content especially in the man page/documentation area.\n\nMichael\n"}]}