Re: sr.ht --- "sir hat" --- alternatives to Github

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:50 PM <lloyd.wood=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> +1 to Bob's unanswered question. and why is this new list ietf-and-github
> and not ietf-and-git?
>

Because Github is what people are actually using, and most of the things
that need to be documented as common practices are not generic to git but
rather to systems like Github and to some extent to Github itself.


github is but one provider, backed by a proven monopolist... and that was
> the choice?
>

As I said earlier, we're paving the cowpaths. You should of course feel
free to try go get people interested in some alternate solution.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. The
situation is this:

1. A bunch of people decided to use Github and felt that it worked well
2. There are now enough people using Github and enough interest from other
people in using it that it seemed like it would be good to have some common
conventions/practices about using it.
3. A WG was proposed to do (2).

Exactly what about this do you object to?

-Ekr

that's a question suitable for this general list. So, on this thread topic,
> what viable alternatives are there?
>
> it also strikes me that setting up a mailing list to discuss use of github
> is not really entering into the spirit of the thing, or showing github's
> strengths and weaknesses. it's very much the nice face of the idea.
>
> Create a textfile with the mailing list charter, commit it to github, and
> then have discussions in the commit comments as everyone commits added
> trailing spaces to that file. if you're going to embrace github in
> discussions, do it properly...
>
>
> Lloyd Wood
> [e-mail]
>
> learn git? if I wanted to learn terse unmemorable commands that do arcane
> things, I'd learn unix.
>
> On Friday, January 25, 2019, 3:44 am, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Matthew,
>
> Please explain why this discussion shouldn’t be happening on the IETF
> list?  Seems relevant to me.
>
> Bob
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Please direct all further discussion on using GitHub to <
> > [e-mail] >.
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > -
> > Matthew A. Miller
> > IETF Sergeant-at-arms
> >
> > On 19/01/24 08:23, Fernando Gont wrote:
> >> On 22/1/19 20:31, Hector Santos wrote:
> >>> My opinion.
> >>>
> >>> My only concern is the perception that the IETF is now "requiring" to
> >>> learn a new suite of 3rd party tools for a single purpose - RFC Draft
> >>> submissions publishing.  For people doing this all the time, and
> >>> probably also using the same tools for other parts of their career, I
> >>> can understand it would be productive, but not for the occasional
> author.
> >>>
> >>> After several decades, I believe an application level IETF online RFC
> >>> publishing tool should be available.  In the past, I used XML2RFC (a
> >>> java app) to outline, produce and publish my drafts. Isn't this
> >>> available any more?  I would think a HTML5 version would be doable
> >>> today, and of course, some vcs would be integrated at the backend.
> >>>
> >>> I personally don't want wish to be learning git details and all the
> >>> other scripting tools and text formats for a single purpose.  I would
> if
> >>> I have to at some top level rudimentary level just to get the job, but
> >>> it is not desirable, and certainly not a career requirement for me.
> >>
> >> Don't worry: https://xkcd.com/1597/ (yes, there's a lot of truth to it
> >> :-) )
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >
>
>