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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:42 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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.
>

FWIW, I have been involved in a number of documents where I am the only pen
holder (i.e., I had no co-authors and I was entirely responsible for the
contents of the document) and I still found Git/Github to be a huge
advantage, for several reasons:

- It lets you easily float proposed changes to the document for WG review.
- It allows others to propose changes to you in a fashion which is easy to
review and accept or reject
- It allows you to recover from your own editing mistakes (in the same way
as it's useful to use source code control even on your own projects)

Obviously, others may differ.



> 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
> working group is to write down and agree on common good practices when
> doing that.  Pretty hard to argue with that


This is my understanding as well.



> .  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.)
>

Yes, I agree with this, and I don't think that this proposed WG is or
should be about pushing people to adopt Git/Github.

However, with that said, if someone came to me and asked me what toolchain
I thought they should use to write an I-D, I would advise them to use
Github.

-Ekr



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.)
> >
> >
>
>