Is dsource .org completely deserted?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.902.1337292243.24740.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [...]
>> Have you ever heard of, or even read, "Hugi Magazine"? (
>> http://www.hugi.scene.org/main.php?page=hugi  ). It has interesting
>> content, but the format is absolutely moronic: Instead of coming in
>> PDF or HTML or even DOC or dead-tree, it comes in *EXE* form. That's
>> right. So you can't use your choice of viewer, and you can't even read
>> it on another device without them actually *porting* the fucking
>> issue.
>>
>> GitHub/BitBucket/etc (along with 90% of "Web 2.0" and "cloud"), are
>> very, very much like Hugi. And yet somehow, people seem to think it's
>> a fantastic *advancement*. Bleh.
> [...]
>
> Is it really _that_ bad? GitHub does support directly running git
> pull/push, clone, etc. just by specifying the URL.  If you want to send
> somebody a pull request, you could just put your repo on any git hosting
> service (or run your own), and email the relevant people the URL to your
> repo. Then they can just run git pull $url and that's that.

Well no, it's not *that* bad (that's why I said "very much like" rather then 
"the same as"), but it's along the same general lines - just not quite as 
far.

>
> Though you do have a point that a standard protocol for pull requests,
> issue tracking, etc., would be nice. If git was extended to have, say,
> discussion tracking for pull requests, then people can actually discuss
> your requests in a hosting-independent way, and you can, e.g., run 'git
> pull discuss --client=mutt' to read discussions via Mutt or whatever
> your favorite non-dumb mail/news reader is. But this is more a
> limitation of the current git protocol than the fault of any of the
> present hosting systems.

Right, exactly.

> You could, y'know, send pull requests to the
> upstream git source to rectify this situation... ;-)
>

That means I'd have to actually find the time to write them ;)  (and deal 
with C/Pyton/etc... Yuck!)

Thing is though, these features have *already* been created, *multiple* 
times, by multiple groups of people. And yet, every single time, it was done 
basically the wrong way. That bugs me. ;)

But you're right, the solution is for someone to actually *make* the "right" 
solution. My main point for now though, was just to at least get across the 
idea of what the "right" way even *is* and why it's better. It's only a 
small first step, but a necessary first step.

> -- 
> Creativity is not an excuse for sloppiness.

Heh :)