4 ms·

Well (as another Federal coder), one problem is the unfunded mandate issue. If this comes with resources to maintain public repos and updates, sure. Otherwise

Well (as another Federal coder), one problem is the unfunded mandate issue. If this comes with resources to maintain public repos and updates, sure. Otherwise, if someone emails me I share the latest snapshot but only as my time and duties permit.

galdosdi 10y ago
How about just using github, like many federal agencies do? (https://government.github.com/community/#us-federal https://government.github.com/community/#us-federal) I realize that setting up an automatic integration between your existing source control system and github might be nontrivial (eg if you are using an unpopular source control system for which no easy conversion to git) so this won't work for everyone without funding (and it would be nice if some were made available for that) But if you already use git (or something like SVN or hg which can easily interoperate with git) or don't currently use any SCM (!) then just publishing to github is a nobrainer. Am I missing anything?
- jamespitbully 10y ago
  >don't currently use any SCM It's even easier when you do. For instance, we have RhodeCode (https://rhodecode.com https://rhodecode.com) as an "umbrella SCM" to control permissions for Git, Hg and Subversion repositories. We then mirror public ones to GitHub/Bitbucket.
- thewopr 10y ago
  I generally agree. I've seen a few challenges to this perspective. 1) Some agencies do not think using 3rd party services like github is allowed. 2) Different groups make the initial code release pretty time consuming (as, in part, it should be) as, through time, the history may have accumulated secrets/keys/other sensitive material. So very thorough reviews are sometimes required. 3) Some agencies allow the use of github (and the like), but make the process of getting code up there extremely challenging. For example, some groups require all changes to code to go through the same internal review process as traditional communication, like a scientific publication or press release (internal review, multiple levels of management, etc). Of course, the last one is the worst. A lot of groups are getting their act together when it comes to starting open-source, but it is met with a lot of skepticism.

galdosdi 10y ago

How about just using github, like many federal agencies do? (https://government.github.com/community/#us-federal https://government.github.com/community/#us-federal) I realize that setting up an automatic integration between your existing source control system and github might be nontrivial (eg if you are using an unpopular source control system for which no easy conversion to git) so this won't work for everyone without funding (and it would be nice if some were made available for that) But if you already use git (or something like SVN or hg which can easily interoperate with git) or don't currently use any SCM (!) then just publishing to github is a nobrainer. Am I missing anything?

jamespitbully 10y ago
>don't currently use any SCM It's even easier when you do. For instance, we have RhodeCode (https://rhodecode.com https://rhodecode.com) as an "umbrella SCM" to control permissions for Git, Hg and Subversion repositories. We then mirror public ones to GitHub/Bitbucket.
thewopr 10y ago
I generally agree. I've seen a few challenges to this perspective. 1) Some agencies do not think using 3rd party services like github is allowed. 2) Different groups make the initial code release pretty time consuming (as, in part, it should be) as, through time, the history may have accumulated secrets/keys/other sensitive material. So very thorough reviews are sometimes required. 3) Some agencies allow the use of github (and the like), but make the process of getting code up there extremely challenging. For example, some groups require all changes to code to go through the same internal review process as traditional communication, like a scientific publication or press release (internal review, multiple levels of management, etc). Of course, the last one is the worst. A lot of groups are getting their act together when it comes to starting open-source, but it is met with a lot of skepticism.