1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.UNIX.SHELL

  • Re: OT: web-based source hosting (was: Re: lisp scripts)

    From Kenny McCormack@21:1/5 to nunojsilva@invalid.invalid on Sun Feb 9 11:54:34 2025
    In article <voa4fr$k88l$1@dont-email.me>,
    Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    ...
    So that it's harder to read or download without git or specific
    browsers, or even without JavaScript; or has SourceForge reached that
    level of unusability now too?

    I mean, while I could understand SourceForge being not recommended for
    some reasons (which ones?), it strikes me as unlikely that GitHub is a
    good option, given how they've been progressively rendering it unusable
    on the web (three years ago or so it was different in this regard), and
    I guess/hope that, for the git part, there would be other alternatives
    there, or there really are none?

    Well, do consider the source. Consider that it *was* KT who made that recommendation.

    --
    Trump is so much smarter than anyone who voted for him. His IQ must be at least 100. It's too bad that he believes in vaccines. He keeps getting
    those shots and they're obviously contributing to his severe cognitive
    decline.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nuno Silva@21:1/5 to Keith Thompson on Sun Feb 9 11:44:59 2025
    On 2025-02-09, Keith Thompson wrote:

    Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
    On 2025-02-09, zara <johan@freecol.be> wrote:
    [...]
    I am working on scripts in Common Lisp using shell inside,
    here's the link to the code, it's GPL2 :

    http://sf.net/projects/lisp-scripts

    In 2025, nobody is going to download and unpack tarballs you posted to
    sourceforge to look at your code.

    You might as well scratch it on the wall of your cave with a piece of
    charcoal, and invite people to peruse it by the light of a torch.

    Consider putting your code on GitHub instead.

    So that it's harder to read or download without git or specific
    browsers, or even without JavaScript; or has SourceForge reached that
    level of unusability now too?

    I mean, while I could understand SourceForge being not recommended for
    some reasons (which ones?), it strikes me as unlikely that GitHub is a
    good option, given how they've been progressively rendering it unusable
    on the web (three years ago or so it was different in this regard), and
    I guess/hope that, for the git part, there would be other alternatives
    there, or there really are none?

    --
    Nuno Silva

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Nuno Silva on Mon Feb 10 00:06:18 2025
    On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 11:44:59 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote:

    So that it's harder to read or download without git or specific
    browsers ...

    GitHub works fine as a source for git-clone and git-fetch commands,
    without any browser being involved. And you can push to it, if you have an account. Yes, there are plenty of alternatives for Git repo hosting.
    Someone else mentioned Codeberg; there are also GitLab and BitBucket.

    (I think all of these require a browser interface for tasks like setting
    up a repo in the first place.)

    BitBucket started out hosting only Mercurial repos; then market pressures forced it to add Git as an option; then the Mercurial business proved
    unviable and was dropped altogether.

    SourceForge also does Git now, but I don’t think that makes it much more attractive. ;)

    It is also easy for you to publish your own repos on your own server,
    through a tool as simple as Gitolite.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)