www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Is dsource .org completely deserted?

reply Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> writes:
--f46d04088d7bb1745704bfff96ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I was browsing dsource.org for some libraries, that I need and every single
project, that I looked at was either completely abandoned or stuck with the
ancient D1.
Is there at least one sane project in there or is dsource.org an ancient
fossil for museum display?
Sorry for my frustration.

-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.

--f46d04088d7bb1745704bfff96ad
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>I was browsing <a href=3D"http://dsource.org">dsource.org</a> for some=
 libraries, that I need and every single project, that I looked at was eith=
er completely abandoned or stuck with the ancient D1.</div><div>Is there at=
 least one sane project in there or is <a href=3D"http://dsource.org">dsour=
ce.org</a> an ancient fossil for museum display?<br clear=3D"all">
<div><div>Sorry for my frustration.</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-new=
line"></div>-- <br>Bye,<br>Gor Gyolchanyan.<br>
</div>

--f46d04088d7bb1745704bfff96ad--
May 14 2012
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:06:12 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan  
<gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> wrote:

 I was browsing dsource.org for some libraries, that I need and every  
 single
 project, that I looked at was either completely abandoned or stuck with  
 the
 ancient D1.
 Is there at least one sane project in there or is dsource.org an ancient
 fossil for museum display?
 Sorry for my frustration.

There are several. The problem is finding them amongst all the tumbleweeds. I plan to move my lib (dcollections) to github as soon as I have some spare time that I wouldn't want to spend doing something else (i.e. low on the priority list). -Steve
May 14 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gvuqhcqczjqmdtpsagrj 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.
May 14 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
news:cuucmsymdqnsrurlkfpg forum.dlang.org...
 On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 02:36:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:gvuqhcqczjqmdtpsagrj 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...

There *is* such a protocol - it's called Git.

Right, I agree, but these days, Git (or Hg) is essentially only a half-VCS without such things. And Git and Hg don't have such things.
 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.

I'm well aware that it's deliberate, but it's still anti-competetive, asinine and anachronistic. And it's not as if the whole hosting thing isn't worth anything. That is, after all, what they *do*. People have this bizarre idea that the pursuit of $$$ automatically excuses anything and everything. "WTF, that's terrible!" "No, it's ok: They're making $$$ off of it!" "Oh, ok then! If they're making $$$!" This is why OSS software will always be better (on average) than commercial: No managers to fuck things up.
May 15 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote in message 
news:jottlr$stf$1 digitalmars.com...
 "foobar" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
 news:cuucmsymdqnsrurlkfpg forum.dlang.org...

 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.

I'm well aware that it's deliberate, but it's still anti-competetive, asinine and anachronistic. And it's not as if the whole hosting thing isn't worth anything. That is, after all, what they *do*.

Wait, what the hell am I thinking? Even if is deliberate, and even if "$$$!!" did excuse everything, it *still* doesn't even make a shred of sense anyway: They *already* offer a free API which can be used for any of the different forms of interop I was suggesting. So they're *already* ok with all of what I suggested. Locking out interop is *not* part of their business model. They've just implemented that interop in a colossally dumb way, that's all.
May 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 ancient D1.


druntime has assembler code, assembler is more ancient than D1, druntime belongs to D2, so D2 is more ancient than D1. Whoops! It's a time paradox!
May 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Gor Gyolchanyan" <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.722.1337004471.24740.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
I was browsing dsource.org for some libraries, that I need and every single
 project, that I looked at was either completely abandoned or stuck with 
 the
 ancient D1.
 Is there at least one sane project in there or is dsource.org an ancient
 fossil for museum display?
 Sorry for my frustration.

I still use it for issue tracking and [zero-traffic] message boards for my stuff: http://www.dsource.org/projects/semitwist http://www.dsource.org/projects/goldie http://www.dsource.org/projects/haxed And for that last one, HaxeD, I also use it as the main project homepage. Plus, Tango and the Orange serialization lib are still on DSource: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango http://www.dsource.org/projects/orange That's just off the top of my head, there's probably other stuff, too.
May 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
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. 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 was thinking of writing one, but not sure if it's really worth 
it (and have a couple projects/libraries that need to be written 
first).
May 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On 5/14/2012 11:06 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
 I was browsing dsource.org <http://dsource.org> for some libraries, that
 I need and every single project, that I looked at was either completely
 abandoned or stuck with the ancient D1.
 Is there at least one sane project in there or is dsource.org
 <http://dsource.org> an ancient fossil for museum display?
 Sorry for my frustration.

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.

Derelict 2 is still alive and kicking there. Plus, the Derelict forum there is where I support both Derelict 2 & 3.
May 14 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-15 08:32, Mike Parker wrote:

 Derelict 2 is still alive and kicking there. Plus, the Derelict forum
 there is where I support both Derelict 2 & 3.

The forum for Derelict is basically the only one which is active. -- /Jacob Carlborg
May 15 2012
next sibling parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 15.05.2012 14:04, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
 Derelict 3 is under development and is on github, so Derelict is not
 gonna be on dsource.org <http://dsource.org> for too long,
 A plethora of dead projects on dsource.org <http://dsource.org> is a
 good way to scare away newcomers, i think.

I think that a global purge can save it. Just archive/move away all of projects not updated for more then 1 year into some sort of Archive section. In case of misfire author can just contact admin and get his project reinstated. -- Dmitry Olshansky
May 15 2012
prev sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On 5/15/2012 7:04 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
 Derelict 3 is under development and is on github, so Derelict is not
 gonna be on dsource.org <http://dsource.org> for too long,

It will be there as long as DSource exists. I have no plans to move it. My only real alternatives for the forum is to host it on my personal site or make a new one. Neither is very appealing to me at the moment.
May 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> writes:
--bcaec54c52a097096804c010536b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Derelict 3 is under development and is on github, so Derelict is not gonna
be on dsource.org for too long,
A plethora of dead projects on dsource.org is a good way to scare away
newcomers, i think.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2012-05-15 08:32, Mike Parker wrote:

  Derelict 2 is still alive and kicking there. Plus, the Derelict forum
 there is where I support both Derelict 2 & 3.

The forum for Derelict is basically the only one which is active. -- /Jacob Carlborg

-- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan. --bcaec54c52a097096804c010536b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Derelict 3 is under development and is on github, so Derelict is not gonna = be on <a href=3D"http://dsource.org">dsource.org</a> for too long,<div>A pl= ethora of dead projects on <a href=3D"http://dsource.org">dsource.org</a> i= s a good way to scare away newcomers, i think.<br> <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jacob Carlb= org <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:doob me.com" target=3D"_blank">= doob me.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl= e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class=3D"im">On 2012-05-15 08:32, Mike Parker wrote:<br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Derelict 2 is still alive and kicking there. Plus, the Derelict forum<br> there is where I support both Derelict 2 &amp; 3.<br> </blockquote> <br></div> The forum for Derelict is basically the only one which is active.<span clas= s=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> <br> -- <br> /Jacob Carlborg<br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b= r>Bye,<br>Gor Gyolchanyan.<br> </div> --bcaec54c52a097096804c010536b--
May 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> writes:
--f46d040714c57dfe6704c0108ef5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I agree. That way it will become more apparent what really needs to be
written for D. Currently there "appears" to be a lot of stuff written for
D, when there's not more, then just a few.
Also, I think there should be a strict division of D1 and D2 projects
(where projects, supporting both would appear in both categories).
For instance, there's the DDL library for custom dynamic libraries in D,
but it' D1 only, making it completely useless for the vast majority of D
programmers.


On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>wrote:

 On 15.05.2012 14:04, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 Derelict 3 is under development and is on github, so Derelict is not
 gonna be on dsource.org <http://dsource.org> for too long,
 A plethora of dead projects on dsource.org <http://dsource.org> is a

 good way to scare away newcomers, i think.

projects not updated for more then 1 year into some sort of Archive section. In case of misfire author can just contact admin and get his project reinstated. -- Dmitry Olshansky

-- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan. --f46d040714c57dfe6704c0108ef5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree. That way it will become more apparent what really needs to be writ= ten for D. Currently there &quot;appears&quot; to be a lot of stuff written= for D, when there&#39;s not more, then just a few.<div>Also, I think there= should be a strict division of D1 and D2 projects (where projects, support= ing both would appear in both categories).</div> <div>For instance, there&#39;s the DDL library for custom dynamic libraries= in D, but it&#39; D1 only, making it completely useless for the vast major= ity of D programmers.</div><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, = May 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry Olshansky <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"= mailto:dmitry.olsh gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">dmitry.olsh gmail.com</a>&g= t;</span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On 15.05.2012 14:04, Gor G= yolchanyan wrote:<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l= eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im"> Derelict 3 is under development and is on github, so Derelict is not<br></d= iv> gonna be on <a href=3D"http://dsource.org" target=3D"_blank">dsource.org</a=
 &lt;<a href=3D"http://dsource.org" target=3D"_blank">http://dsource.org</=

A plethora of dead projects on <a href=3D"http://dsource.org" target=3D"_bl= ank">dsource.org</a> &lt;<a href=3D"http://dsource.org" target=3D"_blank">h= ttp://dsource.org</a>&gt; is a<div class=3D"im"><br> good way to scare away newcomers, i think.<br> <br> </div></blockquote> <br> I think that a global purge can save it. Just archive/move away all of proj= ects not updated for more then 1 year into some sort of Archive section. In= case of misfire author can just contact admin and get his project reinstat= ed.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> <br> <br> -- <br> Dmitry Olshansky<br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b= r>Bye,<br>Gor Gyolchanyan.<br> </div> --f46d040714c57dfe6704c0108ef5--
May 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "foobar" <foo bar.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 02:36:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:gvuqhcqczjqmdtpsagrj 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.
May 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:43:42 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 I'm well aware that it's deliberate, but it's still anti-competetive,
 asinine and anachronistic. And it's not as if the whole hosting thing  
 isn't
 worth anything. That is, after all, what they *do*.

Wait, can't you just git clone the data into whatever "github-like" service you wish? I mean, yeah, you cannot do pull requests to Phobos unless you have your code in github, but that could just be a simple intermediate step. I recently switched all my private repositories from github to bitbucket (free unlimited private repositories vs. $12/mo for 10 private repositories), and bitbucket actually has a page to suck the code from github *directly* I didn't even have to do the git-clone-locally-then-push-to-other-remote dance. Probably the easiest service change of anything in my entire life! It took all of 5 minutes. So if you like bitbucket, use that, if you like github use that, if you like something else, use that. But if you want to contribute to a project, you have to use whatever that project uses. I think that's both very reasonable and very flexible. -Steve
May 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Geoffrey Biggs <geoffrey.biggs aist.go.jp> writes:
On May 16, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:43:42 -0400, Nick Sabalausky =

=20
 I'm well aware that it's deliberate, but it's still anti-competetive,
 asinine and anachronistic. And it's not as if the whole hosting thing =


 worth anything. That is, after all, what they *do*.

Wait, can't you just git clone the data into whatever "github-like" =

unless you have your code in github, but that could just be a simple = intermediate step. This is not entirely correct. You can do pull requests. You just can't = do them through the github interface, which aims to make them easier and = smoother. A pull request is nothing more than a request to execute a = common git command with a URL pointing to a git repository (which can be = hosted anywhere). The github interface just wraps this command and = directs it to the repository stored on the server rather than one on = your computer (as well as adding things like tracker integration, etc). =46rom the git documentation: Often, "please pull" messages on the mailing list just provide two = pieces of information: a repo URL and a branch name; this is designed to = be easily cut&pasted at the end of a git fetch command line: Linus, please pull from git://git..../proj.git master to get the following updates... becomes: $ git pull git://git..../proj.git master (See http://git-scm.com/docs/git-tag) Projects that don't operate around sites like github rely on messages to = a mailing list asking the integrator to pull from some branch of some = repository. Although I'm sure the Linux kernel works like this, I = haven't seen it, but I have seen the same process used effectively by = Erlang - and they even use github for their repositories. If Phobos is *requiring* pull requests to be done through the github = interface, well, I think that's pretty silly and a good way to = discourage some contributions, but it's not my project and perhaps they = like the interface too much to work any other way. Geoff=
May 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On 16/05/12 15:09, Geoffrey Biggs wrote:
 Projects that don't operate around sites like github rely on messages to a
mailing list asking the integrator to pull from some branch of some repository.
Although I'm sure the Linux kernel works like this, I haven't seen it, but I
have seen the same process used effectively by Erlang - and they even use
github for their repositories.

You can also generate patches and attach to email, so discussion/review of the patch can happen on the list. IIRC the Bazaar project does this, and they even have some kind of automated vote-tracking system in place that lets authorized individuals assent, dissent or abstain from merging a patch into the trunk.
May 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On 15/05/12 04:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 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?

Whatever your opinion of GitHub etc. (and I agree that it makes sense for there to be a well-defined set of interaction protocols), the key point is surely that dedicated code-hosting and collaboration platforms can provide a much better service than individual projects' self-hosted repositories. Where dsource.org is concerned probably the best thing to do is make it a carefully-maintained directory of active projects, without hosting, issue tracking, etc. included (of course, existing repos should be kept in place to avoid data loss). It's unlikely to be much pain for the projects, who can be given plenty of notice to migrate. As it stands it makes D look quite dead and derelict, when that's not the case at all.
May 16 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> wrote in message 
news:mailman.840.1337179907.24740.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 15/05/12 04:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 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?

Whatever your opinion of GitHub etc. (and I agree that it makes sense for there to be a well-defined set of interaction protocols), the key point is surely that dedicated code-hosting and collaboration platforms can provide a much better service than individual projects' self-hosted repositories.

My main point is that those features (fork/pull request/issue tracking, etc) should be decoupled from hosting so that, for example, self-hosted repos would *not* provide inferior service, in fact they woudn't have to provide some stupid bundled interface at all: As a *user* (NOT as a project maintainer), you would just use *your own* choice of github, bitbucket, Tortoise*, or whatever the fuck YOU wanted to use, to access whatever the fuck repo you wanted to access, wherever the hell said repo happens to live. The whole point is that interface and hosting have no business being coupled as they are now. Tying repo and interface together makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What we have now is *no* different from those god-awful, absolutely rediculous, image sharing "tools" like Kodak Photo Viewer or Adobe Lightroom's Flash exporter. (I *hate* when people try to send me pictures with those reprehensible things.) Or Flash-based videos: Why the hell is it so incredibly unacceptable for people to use THEIR OWN fucking choice of video player? In any case, github/bitbucket/etc are exactly the same thing, just with code instead of picutres or videos (and made by and for people who are smart enough that they *should* know better).
 As it stands it makes D look quite dead and derelict, when that's not the 
 case at all.

Agreed. DSource could use some improvements WRT finding active/inactive projects.
May 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
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. 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. You could, y'know, send pull requests to the upstream git source to rectify this situation... ;-) T -- Creativity is not an excuse for sloppiness.
May 17 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.902.1337292243.24740.digitalmars-d 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 :)
May 17 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 5/18/12, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 Is it really that bad?

Speaking of Github, it's really annoying how many projects get listed here even though they have nothing to do with D: https://github.com/languages/D/created I don't understand how Github manages to pick up so many java/cpp codebases and mark them as D codebases.
May 17 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.904.1337305802.24740.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 5/18/12, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 Is it really that bad?

Speaking of Github, it's really annoying how many projects get listed here even though they have nothing to do with D: https://github.com/languages/D/created I don't understand how Github manages to pick up so many java/cpp codebases and mark them as D codebases.

I wonder if it's trying to detect D files with '*d' instead of '*.d' Or, maybe an accidental regex for '.d$' instead of '\.d$' The [few] projects in there that I looked at all had either a "README.md" or at least some filename that ended with a "d".
May 17 2012
prev sibling parent Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Thu, 17 May 2012 22:10:23 -0400
schrieb "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>:

 "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.904.1337305802.24740.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 5/18/12, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 Is it really that bad?

Speaking of Github, it's really annoying how many projects get listed here even though they have nothing to do with D: https://github.com/languages/D/created I don't understand how Github manages to pick up so many java/cpp codebases and mark them as D codebases.

I wonder if it's trying to detect D files with '*d' instead of '*.d' Or, maybe an accidental regex for '.d$' instead of '\.d$' The [few] projects in there that I looked at all had either a "README.md" or at least some filename that ended with a "d".

Now that's funny. I just looked at one such project and it had neither README.md, nor files ending in d. There were a few shell scripts which made up about half of the project and patches to Python 2.7. So no real programming language used. Yet GitHub shows: D 83.8% C 12.8% Shell 2.7% Other 0.6% Assuming the .sh scripts get correctly recognized, there is something huge accounted for that doesn't actually exist in the repository. I'm sure there is already more than one bug report about this, as it is pretty obvious! -- Marco
May 23 2012