3 ms·

This is a solid explanation. It also makes me wonder, why even use GitHub at a certain point? It seems like GH is a one-size-fits-all approach and the primary r

This is a solid explanation. It also makes me wonder, why even use GitHub at a certain point? It seems like GH is a one-size-fits-all approach and the primary reason to use it is to get _more_ issue, PRs, etc. in your project. But once you hit a certain scale, maybe it’s time to move to a more customizable solution?

ddevault 6y ago
Beats me. This is why SourceHut lets you pick and choose any number of repos, bug trackers, mailing lists, etc, including zero, to associate with a project. I suspect that some projects just use GH to shut the peanut gallery up; a lot of people will demand that any large-ish project moves to GH if they aren't already there. That certainly seems like why Golang did it, for one.
- strenholme 6y ago
  One reason for the demand to move to GitHub is because it makes it easier to find software to solve a problem which is actually open source software if everyone has a GitHub mirror. Searching for “Open source foo” often times results in a bad search results: https://www.google.com/search?query=Open+Source+WOFF+generator https://www.google.com/search?query=Open+Source+WOFF+generat... doesn’t link to the open source reference C language WOFF generator but https://github.com/search?l=C&q=WOFF&type=Repositories https://github.com/search?l=C&q=WOFF&type=Repositories does find it.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    Your case is a bit weird. You're looking for a specific niche codebase, whose authoratative source has disappeared, and end up at a non-authoratiative archive. That's Google on hard mode. If you knew you wanted the reference converter, a more specific Google search would have worked: https://www.google.com/search?q=ttf2+to+woff+reference+converter https://www.google.com/search?q=ttf2+to+woff+reference+conve... A more in-depth research effort into the solution space also turned up things like FontForge and github.com/google/woff2, neither of which showed up in the GitHub results, but depending on your use-case are likely to have been compelling options. I think it's more important to use FOSS infrastructure for FOSS projects than it is for those projects to turn up in a search result. I also think that projects can and should market themselves in a manner which extends beyond appearing in search results. However, I do acknowledge that GitHub search can be useful. I have been thinking about letting you link up repositories hosted on not-sr.ht for your sr.ht projects, which are indexed here: https://sr.ht/projects https://sr.ht/projects So you could, for example, have a GitHub repository, a GitLab repository, and a sr.ht mailing list, all under the same project, indexed in one place. This would go a long way towards establishing a single list of FOSS projects. It would be centralized at first, but I have also been thinking about using RSS to federate the project list across many independent sr.ht installations: centralization gone.

ddevault 6y ago

Beats me. This is why SourceHut lets you pick and choose any number of repos, bug trackers, mailing lists, etc, including zero, to associate with a project. I suspect that some projects just use GH to shut the peanut gallery up; a lot of people will demand that any large-ish project moves to GH if they aren't already there. That certainly seems like why Golang did it, for one.

strenholme 6y ago
One reason for the demand to move to GitHub is because it makes it easier to find software to solve a problem which is actually open source software if everyone has a GitHub mirror. Searching for “Open source foo” often times results in a bad search results: https://www.google.com/search?query=Open+Source+WOFF+generator https://www.google.com/search?query=Open+Source+WOFF+generat... doesn’t link to the open source reference C language WOFF generator but https://github.com/search?l=C&q=WOFF&type=Repositories https://github.com/search?l=C&q=WOFF&type=Repositories does find it.
- ddevault 6y ago
  Your case is a bit weird. You're looking for a specific niche codebase, whose authoratative source has disappeared, and end up at a non-authoratiative archive. That's Google on hard mode. If you knew you wanted the reference converter, a more specific Google search would have worked: https://www.google.com/search?q=ttf2+to+woff+reference+converter https://www.google.com/search?q=ttf2+to+woff+reference+conve... A more in-depth research effort into the solution space also turned up things like FontForge and github.com/google/woff2, neither of which showed up in the GitHub results, but depending on your use-case are likely to have been compelling options. I think it's more important to use FOSS infrastructure for FOSS projects than it is for those projects to turn up in a search result. I also think that projects can and should market themselves in a manner which extends beyond appearing in search results. However, I do acknowledge that GitHub search can be useful. I have been thinking about letting you link up repositories hosted on not-sr.ht for your sr.ht projects, which are indexed here: https://sr.ht/projects https://sr.ht/projects So you could, for example, have a GitHub repository, a GitLab repository, and a sr.ht mailing list, all under the same project, indexed in one place. This would go a long way towards establishing a single list of FOSS projects. It would be centralized at first, but I have also been thinking about using RSS to federate the project list across many independent sr.ht installations: centralization gone.