Re: sr.ht --- "sir hat" --- alternatives to Github

[Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lloyd,

On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

+1 to Bob's unanswered question. and why is this new list ietf-and-github and not ietf-and-git?

Mailing lists are cheap. If people felt that creating a separate one for ietf-and-git would be worthwhile, it wouldn’t be hard to do. As it stands both GitHub and git get discussed on the existing list, and that’s not a problem IMO.

Before initiating chartering of the GIT WG [1] I asked on the ietf-and-github list if people wanted separate lists for the WG and for more general discussion. There was one comment in favor of using ietf-and-github for the WG. That is the current plan.

Alissa

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-git/

github is but one provider, backed by a proven monopolist... and that was the choice? that's a question suitable for this general list. So, on this thread topic, what viable alternatives are there?

it also strikes me that setting up a mailing list to discuss use of github is not really entering into the spirit of the thing, or showing github's strengths and weaknesses. it's very much the nice face of the idea.

Create a textfile with the mailing list charter, commit it to github, and then have discussions in the commit comments as everyone commits added trailing spaces to that file. if you're going to embrace github in discussions, do it properly...

Lloyd Wood

lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx

learn git? if I wanted to learn terse unmemorable commands that do arcane things, I'd learn unix.

On Friday, January 25, 2019, 3:44 am, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Matthew,

Please explain why this discussion shouldn’t be happening on the IETF list?  Seems relevant to me.

Bob

> On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Please direct all further discussion on using GitHub to <
> ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx >.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> -
> Matthew A. Miller
> IETF Sergeant-at-arms
>
> On 19/01/24 08:23, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 22/1/19 20:31, Hector Santos wrote:
>>> My opinion.
>>>
>>> My only concern is the perception that the IETF is now "requiring" to
>>> learn a new suite of 3rd party tools for a single purpose - RFC Draft
>>> submissions publishing.  For people doing this all the time, and
>>> probably also using the same tools for other parts of their career, I
>>> can understand it would be productive, but not for the occasional author.
>>>
>>> After several decades, I believe an application level IETF online RFC
>>> publishing tool should be available.  In the past, I used XML2RFC (a
>>> java app) to outline, produce and publish my drafts. Isn't this
>>> available any more?  I would think a HTML5 version would be doable
>>> today, and of course, some vcs would be integrated at the backend.
>>>
>>> I personally don't want wish to be learning git details and all the
>>> other scripting tools and text formats for a single purpose.  I would if
>>> I have to at some top level rudimentary level just to get the job, but
>>> it is not desirable, and certainly not a career requirement for me.
>>
>> Don't worry: https://xkcd.com/1597/ (yes, there's a lot of truth to it
>> :-) )
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>