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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:56 AM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 3:26 PM
>
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:41:56AM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > > Carsten, I think you seriously overstate teh case.
> >
> > I agree with this, but not with all of your note.
> >
> > > There are costs for using any tool.  In some cases, those costs are
> more
> > > than paid for by the benefits.  In other case, not.
> > >
> > > We do have basic revision control and archival recovery available
> > > already.  So the question for using git for developing I-Ds is
> whether
> > > the additional complexity is warranted by the additional value.
> > >
> > > In some cases, it has been demonstrated to pay off.  Clearly, the
> cost
> > > is lower if all of the folks working on the document are already
> using
> > > git for other reasons.  Even without that, when there are multiple
> > > people actively working on the document, some form of multi-user
> > > revision and update control is very helpful.  Git seems to be a good
> match.
> > >
> > > Many I-Ds have multiple authors, but in practice only one
> pen-holder.
> > > Particularly for simpler I-Ds, the benefits of using git to
> complement
> > > our eixisting archival version control does not seem to pay off.
> >
> > I'm sure that's true for some people (presumably for you, since you
> wrote
> > it).  But it's not true for me.  Using git to complement the existing
> I-D
> > archive absolutely makes my life easier, even for documents where I am
> the
> > sole author.
> >
> > > As I understand it, the current state of play is to allow working
> groups
> > > to use git when they deem it helpful.  ANd the purpose of the
> proposed
> >
> > I think we need to let individuals and groups make their own decisions
> > about what and when it is helpful.
>
> I have always seen the engineers' way of improving the world, as opposed
> to most others, as being an approach of understanding the requirements
> first, creating a design that meets those requirements and then
> implementing something that executes that design.
>

That seems like a rather limited approach.  Real design entails
understanding not just the requirements, but also the tools available, and
the costs and benefits of deploying those tools in different ways.

--Richard


>
> Here we seem to be saying that answer is Github, all you have to do is
> ensure that your way of working is amended to fit that answer.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > -Ben
> >
> > > working group is to write down and agree on common good practices
> when
> > > doing that.  Pretty hard to argue with that.  But to the degree that
> > > folks make arguments like yours below that seem to be using it as an
> > > excuse to argue that we should all use git all the time, I will
> object.
> > > (To be clear, I do not think that the original proposers were asking
> for
> > > that, and I am not objecting to the charter as written.  I am asking
> the
> > > folks remember that there are MANY different perspectives both in
> terms
> > > of tool chains and in terms of the kind of I-Ds that need to be
> > > generated.  NFSv4 is not the same as QUIC is not the same as the
> draft
> > > on fragmentation considered harmful.)
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Joel
> > >
> > > On 1/21/19 2:18 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > > >> Rather weird to read an entire article talking about 'forges'
> > > >> that doesn’t mention SourceForge, the granddaddy of them all
> > > >
> > > > Sourceforge is the worst choice I’m aware of.
> > > > (Yes, we did projects on Sourceforge when they were the only play
> in town.
> > > > We got rid of them when they became criminals [drive-by
> installers].
> > > > Yes, they have new management, but I have no idea why one would go
> back.)
> > > >
> > > >> My take is that, if you're contemplating using git as a necessary
> > > >> tool to help you develop and maintain an internet-draft, you
> should
> > > >> question why you’re writing an internet-draft in the first
> place...
> > > >
> > > > People who do software know that documents are code and need
> revision control as much as the other code.  Git is the consensus way to
> do collaborative revision control.  Why on earth would I use it for
> everything else and not for my Internet-Drafts?
> > > >
> > > > Grüße, Carsten
> > > >
> > > > (Git is “not necessary” in the same way that toilets are “not
> necessary”.
> > > > Yes, you can do without, but it is so much cleaner with them, so
> they have become the standard.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>