On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Scott Chacon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, <david@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:28:32PM -0700, Scott Chacon wrote:
I am more concerned about the logo at the bottom, and Petr and I are
discussing this - I can remove the logo, but then I'd have to pay for
this out of my pocket instead of having a small logo on the page.
I actually think that this is *one* reference to GitHub that is
perfectly and 100% okay; if it is sponsoring the hosting, it deserves
the logo, and it is fairly non-intrusive. I _am_ watching out warily
for excessive GitHub references within the rest of the site - if only
because I have kind of personal interest in a competitor of GitHub and
thus don't want GitHub to get unwarranted free advertising. :-)
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
since this is a Ruby on Rails site, could the 'five links' that have been
bothering people be randomly selected? if every time you go to the site you
get a different list of projects it show how broadly git is used. it's not
as 'in your face' as managing to select five that cause people to say "wow,
they're using this", but different people will react to different sites.
if this table gets populated by GitHub, kernel.org, and a couple other
sources it should be vendor independant enough (and we need a table like
this anyway for the 'list of projects that use git', so it serves two
purposes)
David Lang
I would really like to have the big ones there all the time ('Linux',
'Ruby on Rails', 'WINE', 'X.org', etc) Prototype and MooTools are
pretty big in the web dev world, which a lot of people are starting to
come from - at least Prototype should be there all the time. For the
rest, if we want to pool a bunch of other projects from different
places, that would be cool, but they should be active - I don't want
people clicking on something above the fold and getting a dead
project. If someone wants to help me vet a list, I'd be happy to do
that.
I can see things going either way on this, and I'm sure that the algorithm
for the 'best' way to select projects can be tweaked endlessly. I am not
that afraid of someone hitting a dead link, especially if you were to list
them as 'projects 2,4895,9287,104,18439 of xxxxxx project that have
reported using git' with numbers that large people expect that some
projects will have gone dead, and even if they are all live today, how
frequently did you plan to re-check them to decide they are dead? (and
what is your definition of dead?)
However, that being said, it's going to be difficult to have Github
projects not dominate the list a bit. The fact is that it hosts far,
far more projects than any other single hosting service. Just in
fully public projects, the current stats (from the website pages) are
something like this:
kernel.org : 475
repo.or.cz : 1,553
gitorious : 780
github : 10,560
It hosts far more than that if you include private projects, too. So,
if we want to choose totally randomly, it's going to be at least a 5:1
ratio between github projects and all other public hosting providers.
If anything, statistically, the current list is conservative in it's
links to github projects. For me to avoid using them is artificially
punishing them for having paid plans, which is silly.
as long as there is a mechanism to add things to the list I don't see
anything wrong with the frequency reflecting this reality. anyone who
thinks the numbers are skewed is free to add other projects to the list.
part of this is reducing the room for people to accuse you of impropriaty,
if you select the links people can accuse you of playing favorites, if
it's random selection and includes competitors entire lists, it's much
clearer that you aren't skewing things.
David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
