|
move source to github?
Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
Thanks!
-r
|
|
Re: move source to github?
On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03 , Roger Pack wrote:
> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
no
|
|
Re: move source to github?
On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03, Roger Pack wrote:
> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
I don't see how it's easier.
You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from
repository.
You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.
|
|
Re: move source to github?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@...> wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03, Roger Pack wrote:
Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
I don't see how it's easier.
You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from repository.
You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.
I'm not taking a position on one side or the other, but I do see a lot of benefit for open source projects to use github. For example, I like the network view that github provides, and also it's great to be able to link to a section of code at a specific version. It seems to provide a favorable environment that fosters contribution.
As far as using git, I see your point about it being the same amount of commands. Git is easy to use without github. By more commits to commit your work to the repository, are you referring to you would need to push to two git repos instead of one?
Tim
|
|
Re: move source to github?
>> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
>> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
>
> I don't see how it's easier.
>
> You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from repository.
>
> You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.
True it takes more key strokes to commit to the central repository
(though you could probably wrap it in a script to make it a one
liner).
The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own
branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main
repository.
Thanks!
-r
|
|
Re: move source to github?
On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:46 , Roger Pack wrote:
> The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own
> branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main
> repository.
Compared to checking out, working, and sending in a patch? no... it
really isn't easier. At best, it is equivalent. At worst, it is a lot
of extra mentarbation for no tangible benefit.
Git got popular in the last year or so thanks in part to github...
Last I checked, there was a TON of open (and otherwise) source
development being done for the 20+ years before that without it and we
got along just fine. In my case, I got along better in part because
git is a really sucky tool and because there was less software/tool/
process dogma/zealotry by a measurable amount.
|
|
Re: move source to github?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> wrote:
On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:46 , Roger Pack wrote:
The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own
branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main
repository.
Git got popular in the last year or so thanks in part to github... Last I checked, there was a TON of open (and otherwise) source development being done for the 20+ years before that without it and we got along just fine. In my case, I got along better in part because git is a really sucky tool and because there was less software/tool/process dogma/zealotry by a measurable amount.
git has it's interface warts. But sucky? Relative to what? Git has been a fantastic tool (over subversion / CVS / Microsoft Sourcesafe) and has helped me to better manage collaborative open source development projects.
Once again, not taking a position on whether I think rdoc would be better on github. But I have personally loved git and github, and am trying to understand how someone could label them as "sucky" tools. True open source development occurred before, but for me personally it has made open source contribution MUCH easier.
|
|
Re: move source to github?
Unsubscribe
On 9/29/09, Eric Hodel < drbrain@...> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03, Roger Pack wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
>> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
>
> I don't see how it's easier.
>
> You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from
> repository.
>
> You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.
>
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
|
|
Re: move source to github?
|
|
Re: move source to github?
> You might want to try using, well, basically any other distributed VCS
> (e.g. Monotone, Mercurial or Bazaar). You'll discover that Git has a
> horrible and confusing UI compared to almost all the others (*), and
> that the others can do all the really useful stuff that Git does.
Agreed, but it does have the momentum, and github.
-r
|
|
Re: move source to github?
>> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
>> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
>
> I don't see how it's easier.
>
> You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from repository.
>
> You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.
git aliases might help
$ git config --global --add alias.pom 'push origin master'
$ git pom
|
