Is dsource .org completely deserted?

[foobar]

On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 02:36:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Kapps" <opantm2+spam at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gvuqhcqczjqmdtpsagrj at forum.dlang.org...
>> It would be nice to make a replacement to dsource. There's a 
>> fair few problems with it. For one, people prefer hosting 
>> their source on Github or Bitbucket or such, it's silly to try 
>> and get people to use your own source control hosting instead 
>> of just pointing to one of those.
>
> I firmly believe that GitHub/BitBucket/etc-style features need 
> to be
> standard *protocols*, not features bundled inseparably to 
> project hosting.
> What the hell is this, 1980 all over again where data is 
> routinely tied
> inseparably to the software it originated from?
>
> It makes *no* sense for GitHub/BitBucket to be designed so that:
>
> 1. Forking/Pull requests/etc are all isolated from other 
> project hosting
> providers (It's *DISTRIBUTED* fucking version control, for 
> christsakes!),
> and
>
> 2. Interfaces [very, very VERY sloooow and half-broken ones] 
> are tied to the
> project hosting site/software.
>
> It's like that twitface shit all over again (ie, all that 
> "walled-off
> sub-internets" bullshit), or those god-awful "web photo-viewer" 
> programs,
> but with programmers - exactly the people who *should know 
> better*. This is
> 2012, there's *no* excuse for software design blunders that 
> were already
> going out of date 30 fucking years ago.
>
> Of course, such anachronisms will never be reverted so long as 
> the "cell and
> internet generation" is still around...
>
>> Another would be to integrate package manager stuff when one 
>> is available. And, most importantly, to prioritize active 
>> projects and focus out dead projects automatically.
>>
>
> I agree, such things would be nice. There also needs to be 
> proper use of
> HTTPS for logins/sessions, and automated creation of new 
> projects.

There *is* such a protocol - it's called Git.
Sure it doesn't support pull requests but that's the base for
GitHub's business model - they make money by offering useful
extensions on top of their hosting plans. There is no blunder
here, it's all very deliberate for the purpose of making money.
There's no point on ranting about that.

Git is open source - anyone can contribute and implement these
missing features. Besides, no ones forcing you to use GitHub, you
can easily self-host directly with the bundled daemon or use
additional open-source software such as Gerrit that also provides
the same features as GitHub.

This is akin to ranting about commercials on the radio while
listening to music. Well, they do need to make money in order to
provide free (as in beer) music. If someone doesn't like it he's
free to arrange the music himself on an MP3 or a CD.