Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #110841 > unrolled thread

Were is a great place to Share your finished projects?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Natsu Dragneel <srentzsch10@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 05:48 -0700
    Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-06-30 15:09 +0200
      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-06-30 15:03 +0100
      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 16:06 -0700
        Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 09:13 +1000
        Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-30 19:16 -0400
          Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-07-01 07:53 +0200
      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-01 11:14 +1000
      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-07-01 11:38 +1000
        Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-07-01 07:41 +0200
          Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-07-13 11:28 +1000
          Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 13:39 +1000
          Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-07-13 14:42 +1000
          Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +1000
            Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-13 16:44 +1000
              Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:00 +1000
                Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-13 18:49 +1000
                  Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +1000
              Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 22:07 -0600
                Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-13 21:49 -0700
                Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? hasan.diwan@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 12:04 -0700
                  Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-07-14 15:34 -0400
                  Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:04 -0700
                    Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-15 10:39 +1000
                      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Brandon McCaig <bamccaig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:39 -0400
                      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 02:12 +1000
                        Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-15 21:28 +0300
                          Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-15 21:57 +0300
                  Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Brendan Abel <007brendan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:13 -0700
                    Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-15 10:45 +1000
                      Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-07-15 11:11 +1000
            Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 06:03 -0700
              Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:26 -0700
        Re: Were is a great place to Share your finished projects? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:51 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#111449

Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> writes:

>I understand that in Python's case, pure cost wins out.  Python.org
>could host a GitLab instance, which contains the repo tools plus ticket
>tracking, etc, and ordinary developers could push their changes to their
>own public git repos and send in pull requests and it would all work
>swimmingly. However this comes at considerable cost in terms of
>maintenance of the server and server software.  So I can understand the
>allure of GitHub.  It's shiny and free-ish.

Python's primary repository is Mercurial (hg.python.org), not Git. Were python 
to switch, it wouldn't be too much work to just deploy gitlab (or whatever) 
instead of mercurial. However, I see nothing git offers over mercurial. -- H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111450

On 7/14/2016 3:04 PM, hasan.diwan@gmail.com wrote:

> Python's primary repository is Mercurial (hg.python.org), not Git.

CPython's current repository ....
Ditto for the PSF Python docs.

> Were python to switch,

Like it or not, CPython and the Docs are moving to git and github.
PEPs and the devguide have already been moved.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111452

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:04:14 AM UTC+12, hasan...@gmail.com wrote:

> ... I see nothing git offers over mercurial.

Except greater productivity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111456

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:04 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:04:14 AM UTC+12, hasan...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> ... I see nothing git offers over mercurial.
> 
> Except greater productivity.

That has not been even close to my experience. And I don't mean my
*personal* experience.

About seven years ago, the senior technical manager at my work chose hg over
git. When he left to go to greener pastures, the dev team took about 30
seconds to to reverse his decision and migrate to git, after which the
level of VCS-related screw-ups and queries went through the roof.

To give you an idea of how screwed up things are, even though I'm not one of
the developer team, and have never pushed a thing into the code
repositories (I have pushed into documentation repos), somehow according
to "git blame" I'm responsible for a bunch of code.

(If I'd been paid for this code I didn't write, I wouldn't mind so much...)




-- 
Steven
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111479

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:39:05AM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> About seven years ago, the senior technical manager at my work chose hg over
> git. When he left to go to greener pastures, the dev team took about 30
> seconds to to reverse his decision and migrate to git, after which the
> level of VCS-related screw-ups and queries went through the roof.

Git used to have much sharper edges than Mercurial, but that is
pretty much a thing of the past. With Git you pretty much can't
permanently lose history unless you try really, really hard.
It'll always be there in the reflog for a period of several days
minimum (I think 2 weeks by default?) and if you're worried about
it you can configure it to put that off for months or years...

On the other hand, I have had Mercurial bugs repeatedly lose work
of mine. The kind of bugs that aren't easy to reproduce so nearly
impossible to report and nearly impossible to fix. The ecosystem
of "extensions" makes this problem inevitable. You depend on
extensions, typically third-party extensions for the first few
years of their life, for all of the power-user stuff, and the
extensions have as much power to corrupt or lose history as the
main library does. And of course, they have the potential to
alter the behavior of the core library making reporting bugs that
much more difficult ("ok, but which extensions, official or
unofficial, do you have installed?"). Now instead of one team
writing bugs you have N teams writing them in isolation.

Combined with their failure to accomodate the distributed
development model properly you now have a bunch of incompatible
ideas for managing branches and history editing and they still
haven't gotten it all right yet (but they're getting closer the
more and more they model the design after Git).

> To give you an idea of how screwed up things are, even though I'm not one of
> the developer team, and have never pushed a thing into the code
> repositories (I have pushed into documentation repos), somehow according
> to "git blame" I'm responsible for a bunch of code.

The user name and email fields are not controlled in either Git
or Mercurial so anybody can commit code under your name without
you being involved. That would be pretty unprofessional though...
I can't imagine Git magically pulling your name out of nowhere
when it looks up the author of commits that are responsible for
lines of code... Maybe you should report that to the mailing list
and get to the bottom of it... I suspect that the explanation has
nothing to do with any bugs in Git.

Regards,


-- 
Brandon McCaig <bamccaig@gmail.com> <bambams@castopulence.org>
Castopulence Software <https://www.castopulence.org/>
Blog <http://www.bambams.ca/>
perl -E '$_=q{V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. }.
q{Vg qbrfa'\''g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.};
tr/A-Ma-mN-Zn-z/N-Zn-zA-Ma-m/;say'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111480

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Brandon McCaig <bamccaig@gmail.com> wrote:
> [regarding Mercurial]
> Combined with their failure to accomodate the distributed
> development model properly you now have a bunch of incompatible
> ideas for managing branches and history editing and they still
> haven't gotten it all right yet (but they're getting closer the
> more and more they model the design after Git).

I've never managed to get Mercurial's branching system into my head
(and then you have the people saying "don't use hg branches at all,
just use named tags" or somesuch), but the git branching system is
extremely simple. In fact, all of git is very simple. To anyone who is
having trouble with comprehending git, I strongly recommend this
video. It assumes you have a basic understanding of git commands (or
can pause the video and look up a git-hg Rosetta Stone), but you don't
need expert-level knowledge. In fact, it's aimed at people ages 4 and
up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4

>> To give you an idea of how screwed up things are, even though I'm not one of
>> the developer team, and have never pushed a thing into the code
>> repositories (I have pushed into documentation repos), somehow according
>> to "git blame" I'm responsible for a bunch of code.
>
> The user name and email fields are not controlled in either Git
> or Mercurial so anybody can commit code under your name without
> you being involved. That would be pretty unprofessional though...

If you're paranoid, you can have git sign your commits, in which case
anyone could commit code under your name, but not using your private
key. You can then tell people to be suspicious of any commits they
can't cryptographically verify.

> I can't imagine Git magically pulling your name out of nowhere
> when it looks up the author of commits that are responsible for
> lines of code... Maybe you should report that to the mailing list
> and get to the bottom of it... I suspect that the explanation has
> nothing to do with any bugs in Git.

There are a few possibilities. If someone copied a slab of code from
the documentation repo straight into the code repo (maybe you provided
examples or something), git might detect that and recognize the
copying. In that case, you'd be (correctly) responsible for that code,
and the author would be a two-part "originally authored" pointing to
your docs commit and "moved or copied here by" pointing to the commit
that actually incorporated it. But if the repositories are completely
separate, this is unlikely. More likely, someone might be able to
cherry-pick the commit itself, if there is a corresponding file in
code; again, this would have a two-part authorship marker "author" and
"committer", because every git commit has this. (This is something
Mercurial lacks. Every commit is blamed to the person with the
commit-bit who pushed it, rather than the person who actually wrote
the code. Obviously the committer is important, but so is the author.)

If you want to get to the bottom of it, I would advise exploring the
commits that are tagged with your name. Do they look like changes you
made? Did you provide a patch file that someone else committed? And,
who committed the changes - can you email that person to ask for
clarification?

The beauty of git is that all the information is right there, if you
just look at it - 'git show 142857' will answer most of the above
questions, and add "--format=full" or "--format=fuller" [1] to get the
committer's info. Dig around... have fun!

[1] I mean, not "fuller", just... more formatful. Wait, what?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111485

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
> I've never managed to get Mercurial's branching system into my head
> (and then you have the people saying "don't use hg branches at all,
> just use named tags" or somesuch), but the git branching system is
> extremely simple. In fact, all of git is very simple. To anyone who is
> having trouble with comprehending git, I strongly recommend this
> video. It assumes you have a basic understanding of git commands (or
> can pause the video and look up a git-hg Rosetta Stone), but you don't
> need expert-level knowledge. In fact, it's aimed at people ages 4 and
> up...

I use git daily but don't really use branches, and need to ask a
coworker about the branching commands. Also, reverting changes in git
keeps baffling me (I need to check the source code of emacs' vc-mode to
figure out how it's done).

Anyway, all of this has reminded me that bitkeeper is now free. I've
never tried it so let's see if it is everything Sun's Teamware was.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111486

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>:
> Anyway, all of this has reminded me that bitkeeper is now free. I've
> never tried it so let's see if it is everything Sun's Teamware was.

Hm, ran into compilation trouble.

Maybe I should wait till bk is available for Fedora.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111453

A lot of these arguments and points have already been made and hashed out
on the python-dev list.  There's a very good article that one of the python
core developers wrote about the decision to move to github

http://www.snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move-python-to-github

Basically, maintaining an open source git server, bug tracker, etc. would
have cost time and money, and historically very few people were willing to
contribute those, especially the people who were the most opinionated on
the desire to remain "pure to open source".  Github gives all these things
away for free.  And pretty much every python developer has already used
github for other projects.  In the article he makes a good point that if
you're that worried about always using open-source, then you shouldn't be
using gmail, or twitter, or even automobiles, since they all use software
that is closed-source.  At some point, paying for software just makes sense.



On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

> On 7/14/2016 3:04 PM, hasan.diwan@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Python's primary repository is Mercurial (hg.python.org), not Git.
>>
>
> CPython's current repository ....
> Ditto for the PSF Python docs.
>
> Were python to switch,
>>
>
> Like it or not, CPython and the Docs are moving to git and github.
> PEPs and the devguide have already been moved.
>
> --
> Terry Jan Reedy
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111457

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:13 am, Brendan Abel wrote:

> In the article he makes a good point that if
> you're that worried about always using open-source, then you shouldn't be
> using gmail, or twitter, or even automobiles, 

It's not a good point. I don't use gmail, or twitter, and if I could find a
car that didn't rely on closed-source code, I would use it. Just because
choice is limited and its hard or impossible to get open-source engines
doesn't mean that closed-source engines are a good idea.


> since they all use software 
> that is closed-source.  At some point, paying for software just makes
> sense.

No, that doesn't follow. The opposite of "open source" is not "paying for
software". You can pay somebody to maintain your open source repo just as
easily as you can pay somebody else to maintain their own closed source
repo.

I watched the discussion on Python-Dev that decided to move to github, and
there were completely viable open source hg alternatives. Although nobody
was quite crass enough to come right out and say it, the alternatives were
all dismissed because they weren't Github, because "everyone uses github".



-- 
Steven
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111459

Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:

> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:13 am, Brendan Abel wrote:
> > since they all use software that is closed-source.  At some point,
> > paying for software just makes sense.

Is it 1998 again already?

Or am I expecting too much that people involved in software in the 21st
century should not fall for the canard of “why don't you want to pay for
software”, because it is *completely irrelevant* to the issue of
software freedom.

So please, stop repeating that canard. Of course paying for software
makes sense. That in no way entails vendor lock-in of valuable community
data, and we should not be paying for that.

> No, that doesn't follow. The opposite of "open source" is not "paying
> for software". You can pay somebody to maintain your open source repo
> just as easily as you can pay somebody else to maintain their own
> closed source repo.

Yes. Likewise, just because you don't hand any money to someone doesn't
mean you are free from vendor lock-in and proprietary protocols. One day
perhaps we won't need to repeat that for it to be understood.

> I watched the discussion on Python-Dev that decided to move to github,
> and there were completely viable open source hg alternatives. Although
> nobody was quite crass enough to come right out and say it, the
> alternatives were all dismissed because they weren't Github, because
> "everyone uses github".

Fortunately there are a zillion software projects who can still choose a
hosting provider that won't lock them in, and good free-software hosting
alternatives like Pagure are beginning to appear. Not all is lost.

-- 
 \       “The Initial Mystery that attends any journey is: how did the |
  `\   traveller reach his starting point in the first place?” —Louise |
_o__)                                  Bogan, _Journey Around My Room_ |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111393

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:42:01 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Ben Finney  wrote:
> > Chris Angelico writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Ben Finney  wrote:
> >> > Pull requests. Code review. Issues. Integration with other services.
> >> > All the social information around all of those interactions, and
> >> > more.
> >> >
> >> > If *any* of that is valuable, then yes it's important that it not be
> >> > locked to any one vendor.
> >>
> >> Exactly how important? Not so important as to stop slabs of Python
> >> from migrating to GitHub, including its pull request system.
> >
> > I maintain that it is important enough to stop that.
> >
> > The migration happened anyway, because not everyone is convinced of the
> > importance of avoiding vendor lock-in of valuable data, over criteria
> > such as “this person happens to like Vendor-locked Solution Foo”.
> >
> 
> Fine. You're welcome to take a 100% philosophical stance; I applaud
> you for it. (I understand Richard Stallman is so adamant about not
> using *any* non-free code - software or firmware - that he restricts
> himself to a tiny selection of laptops that have free BIOSes.)
> Personally, I believe practicality beats purity in computing
> philosophy as well as API design, and I'll happily let GitHub carry my
> software. What's the worst that can happen? I have to switch to
> somewhere else, and I lose the issue tracker and pull requests. In the
> case of CPython, they wouldn't even be lost - they're (to be) backed
> up. In the meantime, I'm on a well-polished platform with a large
> number of users. The same cannot be said for *many* other hosts, even
> if they do use exclusively free software.
> 
> ChrisA

Speaking of notable figure(heads) its good to compare Stallman (rms) and
Torvalds.

rms started working on the gnu-system before Torvalds
He did more work on that
He was (and likely is) a more capable programmer

Note further that Torvalds was told off by prof. Tanenbaum for his poor quality
unimaginative approach to Linux

Torvalds still gets the Lion's share of the credit – how many people say
“GNU-Linux distros” rather than just plain “Linux”?

I’d say this is directly related to his choosing practicality over purity
He didn’t change the obsolete (so-called) Unix API
He didn’t redesign the OS along the lines fashionable to guys like Tanenbaum

He just found himself at the right place at the right time — holding a 
protection capable home PC. And beat IBM and Microsoft at producing a kernel for that.

No I am not saying that the fears of Ben and Steven are unfounded
Just that we may have other battles to fight

And other heroes to cheer, eg
http://www.trueactivist.com/muslim-man-hugs-isis-suicide-bomber-saves-hundreds-of-lives-in-iraq/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111415

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:03:30 AM UTC+12, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> Note further that Torvalds was told off by prof. Tanenbaum for his poor
> quality unimaginative approach to Linux

And today, Prof Tanenbaum is struggling to find a little niche where his Minix product can be of relevance, while the entire computing world is converging around Linux.

Who was the “poor quality unimaginative” one, again?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110887

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 1:39:04 PM UTC+12, Ben Finney wrote:
> Christian Gollwitzer writes:
> 
>> The best place these days to publish software is on github.
> 
> For what value of “best”?
> 
> If one wants to avoid vendor lock-in, Github is not best: the workflow
> tools (other than Git itself) are completely closed and not available
> for implementation on another vendor's servers.

That’s (mostly) OK. Git is what I mainly want it for anyway.

> If one wants to communicate equally with Git repositories elsewhere,
> GitHub is not best: federation between hosts is actively discouraged by
> the lock-in.

I can add as many remotes to my Git repos as I like, pointing to servers wherever I like, so I guess it’s not that bad.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web