Re: move source to github?

--000e0cd15134e252600474bc4909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ryan Davis <[email protected]>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.
>>
>
> 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.
>

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.

--000e0cd15134e252600474bc4909
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ryan Da=
vis <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">ryand=
[email protected]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;=
">

<div class=3D"im"><br>
On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:46 , Roger Pack wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own<br>
branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main<br>
repository.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Compared to checking out, working, and sending in a patch? no... it really =
isn&#39;t easier. At best, it is equivalent. At worst, it is a lot of extra=
 mentarbation for no tangible benefit.<br>
<br>
Git got popular in the last year or so thanks in part to github... Last I c=
hecked, there was a TON of open (and otherwise) source development being do=
ne 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.<br>


</blockquote><div><br></div><div>git has it&#39;s interface warts. =C2=A0Bu=
t sucky? =C2=A0Relative to what? =C2=A0Git has been a fantastic tool (over =
subversion / CVS / Microsoft Sourcesafe) and has helped me to better manage=
 collaborative open source development projects.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Once again, not taking a position on whether I think rd=
oc would be better on github. =C2=A0But I have personally loved git and git=
hub, and am trying to understand how someone could label them as &quot;suck=
y&quot; tools. =C2=A0True open source development occurred before, but for =
me personally it has made open source contribution MUCH easier.</div>

<div><br></div></div>

--000e0cd15134e252600474bc4909--