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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:50 AM <lloyd.wood=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The charter explicitly calls out Github, rather than the more general git.
>

Yes, because as I noted previously, most of the conventions that are being
documented depend on the Github UI (e.g., naming, PRs, issues, continuous
integration) or something like it, and are nonsensical in the generic case
of Git


This is, I think, depending on how you look at it, either an attempt to
> focus the group
>

As I noted previously, it's an attempt to pave the cowpaths of what people
actually use. If you want to invent some non-Github based Git workflow,
then we can have a WG to discuss that too.

-Ekr

or a category error, rather akin to the charters for the DTN groups
> deciding from the outset that bundling was all that DTN was, and now github
> is all that git is.
>
> Further category error examples welcomed...
>
> "How can the IETF take advantage of Windows 10? We'll need a wg charter.
> No, Clippy is not in scope!"
>
>
> Lloyd Wood
> [e-mail]
>
> really looking forward to Clippy for GitHub and the Office Git assistant,
> changing how reviewing is done.
>
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019, 1:15 pm, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Lloyd,
>
> On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc..ietf.org
> <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?
>
>
> Mailing lists are cheap. If people felt that creating a separate one for
> ietf-and-git would be worthwhile, it wouldn’t be hard to do. As it stands
> both GitHub and git get discussed on the existing list, and that’s not a
> problem IMO.
>
> Before initiating chartering of the GIT WG [1] I asked on the
> ietf-and-github list if people wanted separate lists for the WG and for
> more general discussion. There was one comment in favor of using
> ietf-and-github for the WG. That is the current plan.
>
> Alissa
>
> [1] https://datatracker..ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-git/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-git/>
>
> github is but one provider, backed by a proven monopolist... and that was
> the choice? 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,
> >>
> >
>
>
>