Hi, On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 10:42 AM Scott Chacon <schacon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:07 AM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > almost 400 weeks after Matt Burke started the process with > > https://github.com/spraints/git-scm.com/commit/60af4ed3bc60 of migrating > > Git's home page away from being a Rails app to being a static website that > > is hosted on GitHub pages instead, today marks the day when Git's home > > page at https://git-scm.com/ has finally moved. Or actually: yesterday > > (because I took so long writing this email that I ended up sending it > > after midnight). Congrats and thanks for making it happen! > The simple thing would be to solve issues like this by just removing > this specific content, but we could also work on a perhaps more > valuable project to rethink the website content entirely. Why are > people coming to git-scm.com? What information are they looking for? > How could we answer those questions most efficiently? > > This is essentially what my first version of git-scm.com was trying to > do when I registered the domain and launched the first version 16 > years ago as an alternative to git.or.cz: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/d411cc4a0807251035i7aed2ec9wef7e8f1b3ae4c585@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > But as I said, the answers to these questions are very different today > than they were 16 years ago. > > The version I helped launch 12 years ago (essentially the exact same > site that exists there today) was trying to do the same thing - > determine what people are coming to the site for and give them that > information as quickly and easily as possible: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAP2yMaJy=1c3b4F72h6jL_454+0ydEQNXYiC6E-ZeQQgE0PcVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks for your previous work on the website and for this background information! > I would love to take another crack at this, I'm happy to put some > design resources and further engineering (built off the great work > Johannes has done here) into the project. It would be great to get > some feedback from this group as to what they think would be most > valuable for people today. Glad that you are willing to put more effort on the website! > For example, I think the book contents and the man-page hosting has > been incredibly valuable. I still use those resources today from > Google searches. I feel like perhaps the Guides section could be > structured and presented better - there is some great documentation > there. I have been talking to Apress on and off about a third edition, > perhaps a revamp of that content is also overdue - the last edition of > that was published in 2014. > > I think the entire "About" section should be totally rethought. > > Perhaps adding something about different use cases - large files for > game development, etc. There is no mention of LFS or partial cloning > or anything here. I agree that having content about those topics could help. It would perhaps avoid companies and projects around Git duplicating such kind of content on their respective websites. > There is no information currently on any forge or hosting options, > which seems silly. I think at the time I was trying to avoid > "advertising" for GitHub, but it would be nice for people to know all > the options for hosting their code, just as we have a client section. > Even more CLI clients and tools, rather than just GUIs - things like > git-absorb, stacked git, etc. I think it would be a good idea to improve on this too, but care should be taken to keep a level playing field for all tools, solutions and companies. > Perhaps more videos - there is so much great content on YouTube we > could link to. Right now it's like Linus's talk, my old Google talk > and 4 Matt McCullough tutorials. > > I would love to pull in Git Rev News as a blog on git-scm.com, and/or > link to Taylor's regular posts about what's new in the new versions. > It's such great content and would be nice to have more visible. About Taylor's regular posts on GitHub's website, GitLab decided some time ago to also have their own news about new Git versions: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2024/07/29/whats-new-in-git-2-46-0/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2024/04/30/whats-new-in-git-2-45-0/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2024/02/26/gitlabs-contributions-to-git-2-44-0/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2024/01/11/the-contributions-we-made-to-the-git-2-43-release/ That's because when writing for one company's blog, people tend to overemphasize what that company contributed, and to emphasize less what other companies (especially competitors) contributed. I think this is normal and not specific to GitHub by the way. Anyway if only GitHub's version of what happened would be shown by the Git project, it would seem like the Git project would endorse it in some ways which would not be fair. > Honestly, this whole website would be nice to incorporate: > https://git.github.io/rev_news/ I would have hoped it would be the whole https://git.github.io/ (Git Developer Pages) site instead of just the Git Rev News part of it. There are basically 3 parts to the Git Developer Pages: Git Rev News related pages, the Hacking Git page and the mentoring program pages, and I think it would not make much sense to move only parts of them to git-scm.com as they are all related to trying to encourage people to participate in Git's development. We could either move them all to subsections of https://git-scm.com/community or perhaps create a high level https://git-scm.com/developer or https://git-scm.com/development. One big advantage in deprecating the whole Git Developer Pages site would be to avoid issues with style sheets, with layouts on mobile phones, etc on 2 different websites instead of just one. We would need to keep the Git Developer Pages site on for some time and add redirects for most pages of it though. I have created the following issue to discuss this: https://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/729 but I am Ok with discussing it here if people prefer. > In the end, I'm happy to put some work into this, or perhaps work with > Johannes and Taylor and Matt and whomever else is maintaining the site > now. Thanks, Christian.
