svn2github's WP34S SVN mirror on GitHub

[timofonic]

Hello.

https://github.com/svn2github/wp34s

The mirror is there. I requested it.

GitHub is easier and more people look at it. SourceForge is cumbersome and a lot less popular.

Would you consider switch to GitHub or that's an issue to development?

Kind regards.

[emece67]

(01-18-2016 03:21 AM)timofonic Wrote:  GitHub is easier [...]

I disagree with this. In any case, I'm not a developer so I do not decide here.

[Paul Dale]

I don't see much point in relocating the 34S project at the moment -- we're in support mode now rather than active development.

For any new project, it would make sense to reconsider where it was hosted.


- Pauli

[timofonic]

(01-18-2016 07:45 AM)emece67 Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:21 AM)timofonic Wrote:  GitHub is easier [...]

I disagree with this. In any case, I'm not a developer so I do not decide here.

I agree you can disagree. But I disagree about not providing explanations, please be more constructive

(01-18-2016 10:18 AM)Paul Dale Wrote:  I don't see much point in relocating the 34S project at the moment -- we're in support mode now rather than active development.

For any new project, it would make sense to reconsider where it was hosted.


- Pauli

Okay, that's a good point! Anyway, I like to see the stuff over GitHub. It's trendy and probably will go over after certain time, but lots projects found more visibility over there than any other FOSS hosting service.

The mirroring is automatic, don't worry about it. It's just another location where people can see the code, this has been done before (some geekies mirror their repositories locally too)

Another point is that SourceForge company did and still do quite morally and legally wrong practices.

But I agree it's too much effort if your project is in maintenance mode

[walter b]

(01-20-2016 11:15 AM)timofonic Wrote:  Anyway, I like to see the stuff over GitHub. It's trendy ...

Ooh, one of the best reasons ever

Quote:... and probably will go over after certain time, but lots projects found more visibility over there than any other FOSS hosting service.

The mirroring is automatic, don't worry about it. It's just another location where people can see the code, this has been done before (some geekies mirror their repositories locally too)

AFAIK, you can do that with SVN as well.

Quote:Another point is that SourceForge company did and still do quite morally and legally wrong practices.

Hmmh, can you be slightly more specific? What is it you came across?

d:-?

[rncgray]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/19/..._say_devs/

[emece67]

(01-18-2016 03:21 AM)timofonic Wrote:  [...] GitHub is easier [...] SourceForge is cumbersome [...]

(01-20-2016 11:15 AM)timofonic Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 07:45 AM)emece67 Wrote:  I disagree with this. In any case, I'm not a developer so I do not decide here.

I agree you can disagree. But I disagree about not providing explanations, please be more constructive

Why on Earth should I provide explanations to matters of taste when you don't in the first place?

(01-20-2016 11:15 AM)timofonic Wrote:  Anyway, I like to see the stuff over GitHub. It's trendy [...]

I see, deep technical reasons indeed.

For me this is over.

Regards.

[timofonic]

(01-20-2016 12:40 PM)emece67 Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:21 AM)timofonic Wrote:  [...] GitHub is easier [...] SourceForge is cumbersome [...]

(01-20-2016 11:15 AM)timofonic Wrote:  I agree you can disagree. But I disagree about not providing explanations, please be more constructive

Why on Earth should I provide explanations to matters of taste when you don't in the first place?

(01-20-2016 11:15 AM)timofonic Wrote:  Anyway, I like to see the stuff over GitHub. It's trendy [...]

I see, deep technical reasons indeed.

For me this is over.

Regards.

Lost in translation...

I did mean it's trendy=popular. People are very used to use GitHub a lot more than SourceForce.

There's similar alternatives, like GitLab. It's gaining popularity because it's FOSS, but not totally:

- The Enterprise Edition has (most?) of it's source code available, but it doesn't use a FOSS license.

- It doesn't have an Open Government, like The Document Foundation does. LibreOffice is developed by an ecosystem of companies and individual contributors, in a similar way to the Linux kernel.

[damaltor]

As sourceforge randomly inserts adware in downloads from its site, it should not be used at all in any way anytime. So, I personally am very happy with a github mirror. It doesnt matter to me if it is more popular or easier or whatever, but if it brings WP34S away from sourceforge, it is probably worth it.

[Marcus von Cube]

(02-01-2016 10:13 AM)damaltor Wrote:  As sourceforge randomly inserts adware in downloads from its site, it should not be used at all in any way anytime.

I've never come across this "feature". Can you elaborate?

[damaltor]

Sure, for example read this:
http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-...n-help-it/
or this:
http://www.golem.de/news/nmap-sourceforg...14470.html

TLDR: Sourceforge captures "unused" or "old" projects, restricts any access from the developers (!!), and sometimes bundles "value added services" in form of an adware installer to the downloads. The definition of "old accounts" varies, could be no login for time x, or no updates for time y, or anything else.

[Claudio L.]

(02-03-2016 08:34 AM)damaltor Wrote:  Sure, for example read this:
http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-...n-help-it/
or this:
http://www.golem.de/news/nmap-sourceforg...14470.html

TLDR: Sourceforge captures "unused" or "old" projects, restricts any access from the developers (!!), and sometimes bundles "value added services" in form of an adware installer to the downloads. The definition of "old accounts" varies, could be no login for time x, or no updates for time y, or anything else.

That matter was settled some time ago and those practices have been discontinued.

When a company grows, the "bean counters" always try to take over and force things like this to happen. The negative press helped the developers take back control from the bean counters and they made it right.
I use github for other projects, and it does a better job for contributing to "big projects" (pull requests, etc.), but Sourceforge has a better interface to publish binary files to final users.
So when I want to contribute to somebody else's project, I use Github, when it's my own project and if it needs to publish binaries, I use Sourceforge.
Creating unofficial mirrors doesn't necessarily help a project. I found projects with multiple forks in github, where each person pulls the original code at some point in time, makes a few tiny modifications to suit their needs (mostly undocumented and possibly broken), and then abandons the code there. When you search for the original project, you find all these outdated forks and have to decipher which one is the latest unmodified official one. That doesn't help either.

[damaltor]

Well, that does not matter to me - SF DID take over accounts and DID add malware. Their statement says that they do not add malware "at this time" but that does not mean much - they might start again anytime. Also, a friend of mine has lost his SF project because of a takeover from SF, about two months ago, so they at least still do that. Also older taken accounts and projects are not being returned to the developers.

Sourceforge was good, but they simply are not anymore. Anybody who is able to reflash a calculator will be able to use github, too, i guess...

You are right with the fragmentation of some projects, but that has nothing to do with GIT or SF - you can do that in both. Github is just easier to make public, so the fragmentation is more visible.

[BarryMead]

(02-03-2016 08:14 PM)damaltor Wrote:  Sourceforge was good, but they simply are not anymore. Anybody who is able to reflash a calculator will be able to use github, too, i guess...

From my perspective I think that if the core developers want to choose SVN and Source Forge for their repository, who are we to tell them that they are wrong! We are guests on this forum, and they have put in all the hard work. Why would anyone have the arrogance or gall to tell these hard working generous core contributors, of excellent open-source genius-level work that they did it all wrong and they need to do it over a new way because of the personal preference of a non-contributing newcomer? Wow what an ego!

[Marcus von Cube]

(02-04-2016 04:45 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  ...excellent open-source genius-level work...

You are right. We will not change anything unless we are forced to. For the time being, SF is fine.

Since the project is open source anybody can of course create a copy on a platform of choice as long as he doesn't claim to be the original owner.

[damaltor]

I would never ever tell another developer what to use - if he chooses SF it is entirely his very own choice and I would not question it. I just want to say that I personaly would not do so because of said reasons, and I am very happy with a non-SF Mirror. The bad about that is the project now exists twice and might be out of sync at some time.

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding - though I really dislike SF I would never question the choice of someone else or ask him to move anywhere else. Moving an existing project is a lot of work for itself, also.

[Paul Dale]

undefined

[DMaier]

Having been bitten by SourceForge's bundled malware aka. the DevShare program, I'm encouraged by this Feb. 9 announcement on their site:

Quote:At the end of January, SourceForge and Slashdot were sold to BIZX, LLC by DHI Group, Inc. As the new owners of two iconic sites, we are excited about the future and what we can do together. We’ve already started to take action, and are developing further plans for the site. We encourage your feedback to help us shape the future direction for the site.

Our first order of business was to terminate the “DevShare” program. As of last week, the DevShare program was completely eliminated. The DevShare program delivered installer bundles as part of the download for participating projects. We want to restore our reputation as a trusted home for open source software, and this was a clear first step towards that. We’re more interested in doing the right thing than making extra short-term profit. As we move forward, we will be focusing on the needs of our developers and visitors by building out site features and establishing community trust. Eliminating the DevShare program was just the first step of many more to come. Plans for the near future include full https support for both SourceForge and Slashdot, and a lot more changes we think developers and end-users will embrace.

Stay tuned for future announcements about how we’re making SourceForge better for everyone.

Logan Abbott

President

SourceForge Media, LLC

By "encouraged", I mean, of course, that if they keep this up, I might be willing to download from the SF website around the same time as the last bug is removed from the HP Prime.