[Coco] sourceforge insurance

[Jens]

In the past i also used SF and code.google.com...

code.google.com will close and offers a migration to github:

http://google-opensource.blogspot.de/2015/03/farewell-to-google-code.html

I would also prefer a service that use FLOSS tools. But i agree with "RETRO 
Innovations". Important is, that you have full control of your stuff.


Some nice things on github:

* Very good community features
* "Pull Request" with conversations
* issue tracking
* conversations on commits/code lines
* "compare views"
* Web-Page service based on Git:
	https://pages.github.com/
* Releases are based on Git tags:
	https://help.github.com/articles/about-releases/
* good help pages: https://help.github.com

Some features explained here:
	https://github.com/features

Also very good: The Service hooks. Like continuous integration services.
e.g. I used Travis CI and coveralls.io here:

MC6809: https://github.com/6809/MC6809
Travis CI: https://travis-ci.org/6809/MC6809/
coveralls.io: https://coveralls.io/r/6809/MC6809

Don't know, maybe Travis CI and coveralls are also useable on SF?

Travis CI is very cool: If somebody fork and send a pull request on github: You 
see if the unittests will pass or fail.

But the most important thing: All Features are more easily usable than SF.
SF offers more features but with poor user experience. Today it's better than in 
the past, but far away from github.

It seems to me that github is the most used source code hosting service in the 
FLOSS community. More than SF, bitbucket, Gitorious and all the others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source_code_hosting_facilities



Am 17.06.2015 um 01:08 schrieb RETRO Innovations:
> On 6/16/2015 5:10 PM, Tormod Volden wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM, RETRO Innovations wrote:
>> The community reacted and SF listened and changed course.
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/blog/sourceforge-past-present-and-future-working-to-maintain-the-integrity-of-our-open-source-backbone/
>>
> Fair enough.  I'd have led off with this, as it's probably the best rebuttal of
> the initial concerns raised.
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/discussion/communityvoice/thread/7e269a18/
>>
>> We don't know what SF will do in the future, but we don't know what
>> github/etc will do in the future either.
> I concur.  And, since they've offered up a mea culpa, I agree the current
> discussion is moot.
>> What I do approve of, is that SF is run on open-source software. For
>> example github is a proprietary, closed-source service. By using
>> github you are approving of such actions. Dependency on proprietary,
>> closed-source software, on either side of the http connection, will
>> always come back to bite you. Whether this is important to the whole
>> nitros9 community I don't know. Those who do the work get to decide.
> I'd be hypocritical if I did not agree in principle.  In reality, I am probably
> more pragmatic.  (RMS and I would not get along).  All things being equal, I'll
> choose the FLOSS option over the Closed Source model. But, often, things are not
> equal.  If SF had not amended their direction, I'd still favor a closed source
> solution that supported open source protocols.  In essence, if I can connect to
> my data and export it out of the solution using FLOSS tools, I'm comfortable.
> I'd obviously be more comfy if they were FLOSS, but Life(tm) does not often
> provide that utopia.
>
> Jim
>


-- 


Mfg.

Jens Diemer


----
http://www.jensdiemer.de