Re: git-scm.com website

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

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".