Git weekly news: 2008-49

Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Felipe Contreras]

Hi there,

I've been following the git tag at delicious.com[1] and there's quite
many interesting links, so I thought  on gathering them so the git
community can enjoy them in one pack :)

The blog post is here:
http://gitlog.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/git-weekely-news-2008-49/

But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.

Why Git is Better than X
http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/

GitTorrent, The Movie
http://www.advogato.org/article/994.html

Peer-to-peer Protocol for Synchronizing of Git Repositories
http://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/

Codebase - Git repository hosting with source browser, changesets,
ticketing & deployment tracking.
http://atechmedia.com/codebase

Codebase Launches Git-based Project Management Service
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/12/04/codebase-launches-git-based-project-management-service/

The Git Community Book
http://book.git-scm.com/index.html

GitX: A git GUI specifically for Mac OS X
http://gitx.frim.nl/index.html

Pushing and pulling with Git, part 1
http://www.gnome.org/~federico/news-2008-11.html#pushing-and-pulling-with-git-1

$ cheat git
http://cheat.errtheblog.com/s/git/

gh > hg
http://github.com/blog/218-gh-hg

Easy Git External Dependency Management with Giternal
http://www.rubyinside.com/giternal-easy-git-external-dependency-management-1322.html

Work with Git from Emacs
http://xtalk.msk.su/~ott/en/writings/emacs-vcs/EmacsGit.html

It's Magit! A Emacs mode for Git.
http://zagadka.vm.bytemark.co.uk/magit/

Improving my git workflow
http://hoth.entp.com/2008/11/10/improving-my-git-workflow

git-bz: Bugzilla subcommand for Git
http://blog.fishsoup.net/2008/11/16/git-bz-bugzilla-subcommand-for-git/

android.git.kernel.org Git
http://android.git.kernel.org/

GitSvnComparsion
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion

Guides: Developing with Submodules
http://github.com/guides/developing-with-submodules

A web-focused Git workflow
http://joemaller.com/2008/11/25/a-web-focused-git-workflow/

Why we chose Git, a rebuttal
http://www.unethicalblogger.com/posts/2008/11/why_we_chose_git_a_rebuttal

Git'n Your Shared Host On
http://railstips.org/2008/11/24/gitn-your-shared-host-on

Git integration with Hudson and Trac
http://www.unethicalblogger.com/posts/2008/11/git_integration_with_hudson_and_trac

Everyday GIT With 20 Commands Or So
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/everyday.html

Hosting Git repositories, The Easy (and Secure) Way
http://scie.nti.st/2007/11/14/hosting-git-repositories-the-easy-and-secure-way

10 Reasons to Use Git for Research
http://mendicantbug.com/2008/11/30/10-reasons-to-use-git-for-research/

[1] http://delicious.com/tag/git

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Jakub Narebski]

"Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi there,
> 
> I've been following the git tag at delicious.com[1] and there's quite
> many interesting links, so I thought  on gathering them so the git
> community can enjoy them in one pack :)

Nice work, although I think better alternative would be to weed those
links out, and put them in appropriate sections (or subsections) on
Git Wiki; to be more exact on http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitLinks
 
> The blog post is here:
> http://gitlog.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/git-weekely-news-2008-49/

First, "Official git blog"? Official? There is nothing official about
it. "Unofficial git blog", or "A git developer blog" (or "A git
follower blog"; unfortunately names like gitter or gitster for git
power user's, like TeXnician for TeX users, are taken by nicknames on
#git, if I remember correctly).  Only git maintainer (Junio Hamano)
and git development community (the git mailing list) can decide that
something is "official" resource.

Second, I am a bit curious about 49 in "Git weekly news: 2008-49"
name of the post.

Third, it is collection of links, not news[1].

[1] It would be nice if somebody resurrected GitTraffic, offshot of
now defunct KernelTraffic, or at least helped to write Git articles
for KernelTrap (which currently is in a bit of hiatus).

> 
> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.

Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.

> Why Git is Better than X
> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/

Quite good link from what I superficially checked, present in
GitComparison wiki page.

> 
> GitTorrent, The Movie
> http://www.advogato.org/article/994.html

This article is so full of bad information, exaggeration and
hyperbole, that it would be better to forget about it, and not put it
in the list.

> Peer-to-peer Protocol for Synchronizing of Git Repositories
> http://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/

Not news.

> 
> Codebase - Git repository hosting with source browser, changesets,
> ticketing & deployment tracking.
> http://atechmedia.com/codebase

Not news. Besides it is present in GitHosting wiki page.

> 
> Codebase Launches Git-based Project Management Service
> http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/12/04/codebase-launches-git-based-project-management-service/

Good link, perhaps should be added as 'see also' on GitHosting wiki
page, if it is not there already.

> 
> The Git Community Book
> http://book.git-scm.com/index.html

http://book.git-scm.com/

Good link, present in GitDocumentation. But not news link.

> 
> GitX: A git GUI specifically for Mac OS X
> http://gitx.frim.nl/index.html

On InterfacesFrontendsAndTools. But not a news link.

> 
> Pushing and pulling with Git, part 1
> http://www.gnome.org/~federico/news-2008-11.html#pushing-and-pulling-with-git-1

Very good documentation, with nicely done graphic.

> $ cheat git
> http://cheat.errtheblog.com/s/git/

A bit big for a cheat _sheet_. perhaps it should be added to
GitCheatSheet (see example here for cheat _sheet_) and/or to
GitDocumentation wiki page.

> gh > hg
> http://github.com/blog/218-gh-hg

Seems to be a bit of curio. Not important enough to place it in
GitLinks, IMVHO.

> 
> Easy Git External Dependency Management with Giternal
> http://www.rubyinside.com/giternal-easy-git-external-dependency-management-1322.html

Present on BlogPosts. Might be not as important as article about
Gitosis, because 1.) you can do this by hand, 2.) there are alternate
tools, like Piston, Giston -> Braid.

> Work with Git from Emacs
> http://xtalk.msk.su/~ott/en/writings/emacs-vcs/EmacsGit.html

Very good article, presenting various Emacs modules to work with
Git. Currently as far as I know not present on Git Wiki, but present
on 'Git' page on Emacs Wiki.

> 
> It's Magit! A Emacs mode for Git.
> http://zagadka.vm.bytemark.co.uk/magit/

Probably should be added (as the rest of Emacs modes) to the
InterfacesFrontendsAndTools git wiki page.

> 
> Improving my git workflow
> http://hoth.entp.com/2008/11/10/improving-my-git-workflow

This post is mainly about the same as
  http://graysky.org/2008/12/git-branch-auto-tracking/
namely setting tracking information for _pushed_ branch, using single
command. 

This could have been added to BlogPosts git wiki page.

> 
> git-bz: Bugzilla subcommand for Git
> http://blog.fishsoup.net/2008/11/16/git-bz-bugzilla-subcommand-for-git/

Should be added in addition to git-bugzila to appropriate section at
InterfacesFrontendsAndTools wiki page. Good link.

> 
> android.git.kernel.org Git
> http://android.git.kernel.org/

Is at GitProjects, but thanks for reminding about new server (new
URL). Not a news.

> 
> GitSvnComparsion
> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion

No comment.

> 
> Guides: Developing with Submodules
> http://github.com/guides/developing-with-submodules

Seems like a good reference. Probably should be added to both
GitSubmodules and BlogPosts pages at git wiki.

> 
> A web-focused Git workflow
> http://joemaller.com/2008/11/25/a-web-focused-git-workflow/

I have't read it in detail, so I don't know if the workflow described
there makes sense. I would probably create some rule in Makefile and
use "make publish" or something, which would push the chages _and_
update page, or use post-update hook for that using some 'git-export'
equivalent.

Otherwise from first glance looks like good resource.

> 
> Why we chose Git, a rebuttal
> http://www.unethicalblogger.com/posts/2008/11/why_we_chose_git_a_rebuttal

Nice reference I think, either for GitComparison or BlogPosts (in the
"Praise" section), or GitLinks.

> Git'n Your Shared Host On
> http://railstips.org/2008/11/24/gitn-your-shared-host-on

Not something that one cannot find in basic git documentation, but in
"Further Reading" it has nice selection of links.

> 
> Git integration with Hudson and Trac
> http://www.unethicalblogger.com/posts/2008/11/git_integration_with_hudson_and_trac

Nice example of post-receive hook. Either for BlogPosts or
InterfacesFrontendsAndTools page.

> Everyday GIT With 20 Commands Or So
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/everyday.html

No comment.

> 
> Hosting Git repositories, The Easy (and Secure) Way
> http://scie.nti.st/2007/11/14/hosting-git-repositories-the-easy-and-secure-way
Seminal reference, can be found at BlogPosts page on git wiki.
Very good link.

> 
> 10 Reasons to Use Git for Research
> http://mendicantbug.com/2008/11/30/10-reasons-to-use-git-for-research/

Very nice article.

> 
> [1] http://delicious.com/tag/git

I have a host of links to blog posts with git or distributed version
control info bookmarked...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Michael J Gruber]

Jakub Narebski venit, vidit, dixit 05.12.2008 17:02:
> "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've been following the git tag at delicious.com[1] and there's quite
>> many interesting links, so I thought  on gathering them so the git
>> community can enjoy them in one pack :)
> 
> Nice work, although I think better alternative would be to weed those
> links out, and put them in appropriate sections (or subsections) on
> Git Wiki; to be more exact on http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitLinks
>  
>> The blog post is here:
>> http://gitlog.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/git-weekely-news-2008-49/
> 
> First, "Official git blog"? Official? There is nothing official about
> it. "Unofficial git blog", or "A git developer blog" (or "A git
> follower blog"; unfortunately names like gitter or gitster for git
> power user's, like TeXnician for TeX users, are taken by nicknames on
> #git, if I remember correctly).  Only git maintainer (Junio Hamano)
> and git development community (the git mailing list) can decide that
> something is "official" resource.
> 
> Second, I am a bit curious about 49 in "Git weekly news: 2008-49"
> name of the post.

Since it's "weekly" and this week is week number 49 in this year I have
a certain guess ;)
The blog has 2 entries only: That one and the wordpress welcome thingy...

>> Why Git is Better than X
>> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/
> 
> Quite good link from what I superficially checked, present in
> GitComparison wiki page.

Very nice indeed. Minor nitpick is comparing "hg add" to "git add" and
"hg commit" to "git commit -a", I'm discussing this with Scott already.
But very nice overall.

Cheers,
Michael

P.S.: For the record or in case anyone ?oogles this:

- compare "hg add" to "git add -N" and "hg commit" to "git commit -a",
which compares equivalent commands, or

- compare "hg add" to "git add" and "hg commit" to "git commit" (after
git add, but time "git commit" only), which compares similar sounding
commands; here, the sequence of commands is equivalent, just not the
individual ones

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've been following the git tag at delicious.com[1] and there's quite
>> many interesting links, so I thought  on gathering them so the git
>> community can enjoy them in one pack :)
>
> Nice work, although I think better alternative would be to weed those
> links out, and put them in appropriate sections (or subsections) on
> Git Wiki; to be more exact on http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitLinks

Right, but next week the links will be different. This time the links
where not really from this week, but they will be on the next
iterations.

Somebody could pick the relevant links and add them in the wiki.

>> The blog post is here:
>> http://gitlog.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/git-weekely-news-2008-49/
>
> First, "Official git blog"? Official? There is nothing official about
> it. "Unofficial git blog", or "A git developer blog" (or "A git
> follower blog"; unfortunately names like gitter or gitster for git
> power user's, like TeXnician for TeX users, are taken by nicknames on
> #git, if I remember correctly).  Only git maintainer (Junio Hamano)
> and git development community (the git mailing list) can decide that
> something is "official" resource.

I asked in the mailing list and the only comment I got was: go ahead.
So yeah, that doesn't look like an "official" blessing, but it's not
bad either.

Anyway, my idea is that many gitsters will participate on this blog,
it's not my personal blog, I already have one.

Who wants an account?

> Second, I am a bit curious about 49 in "Git weekly news: 2008-49"
> name of the post.

It's the week number.

> Third, it is collection of links, not news[1].

True, "Git weekly links" sounds better?

> [1] It would be nice if somebody resurrected GitTraffic, offshot of
> now defunct KernelTraffic, or at least helped to write Git articles
> for KernelTrap (which currently is in a bit of hiatus).
>
>>
>> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.
>
> Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.

Exactly, I didn't choose them, that's what people have been tagging as
"git" in delicious.com. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed and saving the
ones that appear a lot.

In fact I don't like some of them, but that's what the "public" finds
interesting.

>> Why Git is Better than X
>> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/
>
> Quite good link from what I superficially checked, present in
> GitComparison wiki page.
>
>>
>> GitTorrent, The Movie
>> http://www.advogato.org/article/994.html
>
> This article is so full of bad information, exaggeration and
> hyperbole, that it would be better to forget about it, and not put it
> in the list.

It's popular, and a lot of people find it interesting. /me shrugs

>> Peer-to-peer Protocol for Synchronizing of Git Repositories
>> http://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/
>
> Not news.

Right, but it is to many people.

<snip/>

Thanks for the comments, but gathering all these links is already
taking me more time that I wished.

> I have a host of links to blog posts with git or distributed version
> control info bookmarked...

My objective is to do this weekly. Maybe I'll put the links in a git
repo so people can see them before I make the post. Would you find
that useful?

As an example of possible links for next week:
My RubyGems development tools and workflow
http://drnicwilliams.com/2008/12/05/my-rubygems-development-tools-and-workflow/

Pushr, or the application will deploy itself
http://www.restafari.org/pushr-or-the-application-will-deploy-itself.html

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Jakub Narebski]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 18:46, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I've been following the git tag at delicious.com[1]

By the way, from time to time I search blogs using either Technorati
searching for "http://git.or.cz", or Google Blog Search searching
either for "link:git.or.cz" or "Distributed Version Control".

BTW. funny thing that Google _Blog_ Search sometimes returns a host
of links to 'commit' view of gitweb... :-)

>>> and there's quite 
>>> many interesting links, so I thought  on gathering them so the git
>>> community can enjoy them in one pack :)
>>
>> Nice work, although I think better alternative would be to weed those
>> links out, and put them in appropriate sections (or subsections) on
>> Git Wiki; to be more exact on http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitLinks
> 
> Right, but next week the links will be different. This time the links
> where not really from this week, but they will be on the next
> iterations.
> 
> Somebody could pick the relevant links and add them in the wiki.

Well, if it is mainly as the place for "weekly links", it has some
purpose as it. And finding the links, perhaps with some minimal
reduction (removing duplicates and such), is much easier and takes
much less time than selecting "links of impact" for GitLinks page,
or selecting other page like BlogPosts, GitComparison, GitDocumentation
or InterfacesFrontendsAndTools git wiki page to add link to.

>>> The blog post is here:
>>> http://gitlog.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/git-weekely-news-2008-49/
>>
>> First, "Official git blog"? Official? There is nothing official about
>> it. "Unofficial git blog", or "A git developer blog" (or "A git
>> follower blog"; unfortunately names like gitter or gitster for git
>> power user's, like TeXnician for TeX users, are taken by nicknames on
>> #git, if I remember correctly).  Only git maintainer (Junio Hamano)
>> and git development community (the git mailing list) can decide that
>> something is "official" resource.
> 
> I asked in the mailing list and the only comment I got was: go ahead.
> So yeah, that doesn't look like an "official" blessing, but it's not
> bad either.

Ah, I didn't remember about it.
 
>
> Anyway, my idea is that many gitsters will participate on this blog,
> it's not my personal blog, I already have one.
> 
> Who wants an account?

Still it looks more like "A git blog" than "Official git blog".
 
>> Third, it is collection of links, not news[1].
> 
> True, "Git weekly links" sounds better?

Yes, IMHO it is better name.

>>>
>>> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.
>>
>> Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.
> 
> Exactly, I didn't choose them, that's what people have been tagging as
> "git" in delicious.com. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed and saving the
> ones that appear a lot.
> 
> In fact I don't like some of them, but that's what the "public" finds
> interesting.

Well, I think that people would treat those collection of links as
collection of links to _sensible_ contents. So at least put such links
in the "Controversial" (or something like that) section.
 
> <snip/>
> 
> Thanks for the comments, but gathering all these links is already
> taking me more time that I wished.
> 
>> I have a host of links to blog posts with git or distributed version
>> control info bookmarked...
> 
> My objective is to do this weekly. Maybe I'll put the links in a git
> repo so people can see them before I make the post. Would you find
> that useful?

I don't think so.

.....................................................................
> As an example of possible links for next week:
> My RubyGems development tools and workflow
> http://drnicwilliams.com/2008/12/05/my-rubygems-development-tools-and-workflow/

How it is about git?

> Pushr, or the application will deploy itself
> http://www.restafari.org/pushr-or-the-application-will-deploy-itself.html

Nice article, extending on article about Git support for Capistrano.
Worth reading, I think, at least for Rubyists (RnR) here...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Santi Béjar]

2008/12/5 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.
>>
>> Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.
>
> Exactly, I didn't choose them, that's what people have been tagging as
> "git" in delicious.com. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed and saving the
> ones that appear a lot.
>
> In fact I don't like some of them, but that's what the "public" finds
> interesting.

So I don't see the value of such a list. You can go to delicious and
get it. Another thing that could be great is filtering this list to
those that pass a certain criteria (mainly quality, up to date, ...)
and present it in an attractive way, with summaries, categorized by
type (trick, tutorial, comparison,...), ...

Just my 2cents

Santi

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net> wrote:
> 2008/12/5 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.
>>>
>>> Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.
>>
>> Exactly, I didn't choose them, that's what people have been tagging as
>> "git" in delicious.com. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed and saving the
>> ones that appear a lot.
>>
>> In fact I don't like some of them, but that's what the "public" finds
>> interesting.
>
> So I don't see the value of such a list. You can go to delicious and
> get it.

Try it. You can't see which ones are new, which are completely
irrelevant. There are duplicates and you can't see the popularity /
freshness ratio, or "hotness", never mind the most popular this week.

Apparently some people already found interesting links they haven't
seen before, so at lest there's value for them.

> Another thing that could be great is filtering this list to
> those that pass a certain criteria (mainly quality, up to date, ...)
> and present it in an attractive way, with summaries, categorized by
> type (trick, tutorial, comparison,...), ...

Yes, I'll probably improve the presentation.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Santi Béjar]

2008/12/5 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net> wrote:
>> 2008/12/5 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> But here are the links anyway. The order is rather random.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover the _quality_ of those links is very random.
>>>
>>> Exactly, I didn't choose them, that's what people have been tagging as
>>> "git" in delicious.com. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed and saving the
>>> ones that appear a lot.
>>>
>>> In fact I don't like some of them, but that's what the "public" finds
>>> interesting.
>>
>> So I don't see the value of such a list. You can go to delicious and
>> get it.
>
> Try it. You can't see which ones are new, which are completely
> irrelevant. There are duplicates and you can't see the popularity /
> freshness ratio, or "hotness", never mind the most popular this week.
>
> Apparently some people already found interesting links they haven't
> seen before, so at lest there's value for them.

Maybe they should. Sorry for my ignorance.

>
>> Another thing that could be great is filtering this list to
>> those that pass a certain criteria (mainly quality, up to date, ...)
>> and present it in an attractive way, with summaries, categorized by
>> type (trick, tutorial, comparison,...), ...
>

If this view is more or less what you have in mind I'll try to help.

Santi

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Junio C Hamano]

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> [1] It would be nice if somebody resurrected GitTraffic, offshot of
> now defunct KernelTraffic, or at least helped to write Git articles
> for KernelTrap (which currently is in a bit of hiatus).

While I 100% agree with you that "Git Traffic" was a terrific attempt, I
do not think expecting or asking Felipe to duplicate it is realistic.

I searched for Felipe's proposal on the list archive, and its title was
"Planet Git".  That shows why the focus could be different.

"Git Traffic" was great because it attempted to directly address the issue
that the traffic on the mailing list was simply too high (and still is) to
follow for casual observers.  It did so by giving a comprehensive summary
of what important topics were discussed recently on the list from the
viewpoint of one dedicated person who followed many, perhaps not all,
important threads carefully, who very well knew what was going on, and who
had a good taste on what is important and what is not.

But "Planet Git" is quite different from "Git Traffic".  For the latter,
somebody needs to do a real work, continuously.  But more importantly, I
think they would serve different purposes.  A "Planet" could be valuable
to have with or without "Traffic".

I think what was presented as "Official Git blog", however, is also
different from what people expect a "Planet" to be.  I do not think it is
unreasonable to expect or ask Felipe to improve on making his service more
"Planet" like.

A "Planet", as I understand it, is an aggregator of (selected) people's
blogs, and even though I am not currently involved in any Planet nor
follow any Planet myself, I can imagine that it could be a valuable
resource to have a "Planet Git" that subscribes to and aggregates what
influential figures write on git in their blogs.

Felipe's page currently is a random collection of links, and other than
their titles, there is no indication for readers to judge which link is
worth clicking and reading.  It does not even mention who wrote each
piece, let alone editorial comments (e.g. "This is worth reading") like
you added.  When you click one of them in order to read it, you leave the
"list of links".  That is not how navigation (the click and thought flow
for the readers) usually works in a "Planet".

If this wants to be a "Planet Git", I do not think there is any need for
Felipe to ask "who wants accounts?"  It would go the other way.  Instead,
Felipe, as the coordinator of the "Planet", would find people who writes
noteworthy things on git on their own blogs, would ask for permission to
slurp and aggregate what they wrote, and produce the page by aggregating
their writings.  That would make a good "Planet Git".

Expecting people to apply for an account and write for that page would not
fly.  As Felipe said himself, many people already have their own blog.

Having said all that, I am not sure "Planet" would work for the git
community as well as it would for others.  I do not know of many core-ish
people write on git on their blogs (and I know at least two core-ish
people who flatly say "blogging is a waste of time").

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> [1] It would be nice if somebody resurrected GitTraffic, offshot of
>> now defunct KernelTraffic, or at least helped to write Git articles
>> for KernelTrap (which currently is in a bit of hiatus).
>
> While I 100% agree with you that "Git Traffic" was a terrific attempt, I
> do not think expecting or asking Felipe to duplicate it is realistic.
>
> I searched for Felipe's proposal on the list archive, and its title was
> "Planet Git".  That shows why the focus could be different.
>
> "Git Traffic" was great because it attempted to directly address the issue
> that the traffic on the mailing list was simply too high (and still is) to
> follow for casual observers.  It did so by giving a comprehensive summary
> of what important topics were discussed recently on the list from the
> viewpoint of one dedicated person who followed many, perhaps not all,
> important threads carefully, who very well knew what was going on, and who
> had a good taste on what is important and what is not.
>
> But "Planet Git" is quite different from "Git Traffic".  For the latter,
> somebody needs to do a real work, continuously.  But more importantly, I
> think they would serve different purposes.  A "Planet" could be valuable
> to have with or without "Traffic".
>
> I think what was presented as "Official Git blog", however, is also
> different from what people expect a "Planet" to be.  I do not think it is
> unreasonable to expect or ask Felipe to improve on making his service more
> "Planet" like.
>
> A "Planet", as I understand it, is an aggregator of (selected) people's
> blogs, and even though I am not currently involved in any Planet nor
> follow any Planet myself, I can imagine that it could be a valuable
> resource to have a "Planet Git" that subscribes to and aggregates what
> influential figures write on git in their blogs.

Yes, a planet is an aggregation of blogs. I've been involved in some
planets and they are not exactly great.

One disadvantage of planets is usually there's no control of the topic
of the posts. For example in planet GNOME there's some people that
mostly blog only about GNOME, but other people blog about everything,
including what they did in the morning, ate at lunch, and discussed at
the water cooler. Some people have their blogs properly categorized
and the right feeds go to the right planets, but they are the
minority.

Planets are great if you want people to "get intimate" with the
community, probably a small one. Not for git IMHO.

There's a single "planet" I know that doesn't follow the norm;
beagleboard news[1]. There one guy basically uses Google Reader to
share whatever he thinks is somehow interesting for the beagleboard
community. The advantage is that the feed is much more focused than a
planet, but still there's a lot of bias in the links, which sometimes
have nothing to do with the beagleboard.

> Felipe's page currently is a random collection of links, and other than
> their titles, there is no indication for readers to judge which link is
> worth clicking and reading.  It does not even mention who wrote each
> piece, let alone editorial comments (e.g. "This is worth reading") like
> you added.  When you click one of them in order to read it, you leave the
> "list of links".  That is not how navigation (the click and thought flow
> for the readers) usually works in a "Planet".

Lets remember that this is the first try, and there's many more links
that what would fit in any given week, but I just didn't want to leave
them out.

Maybe for the next weeks I'll do a bit of explanation about each link, lets see.

> If this wants to be a "Planet Git", I do not think there is any need for
> Felipe to ask "who wants accounts?"  It would go the other way.  Instead,
> Felipe, as the coordinator of the "Planet", would find people who writes
> noteworthy things on git on their own blogs, would ask for permission to
> slurp and aggregate what they wrote, and produce the page by aggregating
> their writings.  That would make a good "Planet Git".
>
> Expecting people to apply for an account and write for that page would not
> fly.  As Felipe said himself, many people already have their own blog.
>
> Having said all that, I am not sure "Planet" would work for the git
> community as well as it would for others.  I do not know of many core-ish
> people write on git on their blogs (and I know at least two core-ish
> people who flatly say "blogging is a waste of time").

I actually propose two things:

a) planet git

This would be a collection of blogs, probably not developers, which
might consider blogging to be a wast of time, but git enthusiasts. I
don't expect the list of dedicated bloggers to be that big, hence my
second proposal:

b) git blog

A blog can be shared by a bunch of people, much line online news
sites. Junio could write a post once for each release, for example,
without having to setup his own blog, maybe somebody else can
copy-paste "What's cooking in git.git", or any kind of semi-official
announcement.

And I'm sure there will be one or two developers who wouldn't mind
sharing their frustrations and/or visions.

These two are not exclusive, of course.

For a) I need a server (there's a few already offered), setup the
planet software, and people to send me their RSS feeds, which
hopefully are categorized for git-specific posts. I don't have much
faith on this, nor interest.

For b) I just need interested people to send me their emails.

[1] http://beagleboard.org/news

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Jakub Narebski]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> > Felipe's page currently is a random collection of links, and other than
> > their titles, there is no indication for readers to judge which link is
> > worth clicking and reading.  It does not even mention who wrote each
> > piece, let alone editorial comments (e.g. "This is worth reading") like
> > you added.  When you click one of them in order to read it, you leave the
> > "list of links".  That is not how navigation (the click and thought flow
> > for the readers) usually works in a "Planet".
> 
> Lets remember that this is the first try, and there's many more links
> that what would fit in any given week, but I just didn't want to leave
> them out.
> 
> Maybe for the next weeks I'll do a bit of explanation about each link,
> lets see. 

Not necessary a bit of explanation about _each_ link, but at least put
them in rough categories (as a kind of you did), separating praise,
explanation/documentation, web and Ruby stuff and solving, and solving
specific issue (like those on BlogPosts wiki page).
 
 
> I actually propose two things:

[...]
> b) git blog
> 
> A blog can be shared by a bunch of people, much line online news
> sites. Junio could write a post once for each release, for example,
> without having to setup his own blog, maybe somebody else can
> copy-paste "What's cooking in git.git", or any kind of semi-official
> announcement.

Junio has its own blog: http://gitster.livejournal.com

And there is RSS feed for [ANNOUNCE] posts at http://gitrss.q42.co.uk
and "What's cooking in git.git" and the like.

> And I'm sure there will be one or two developers who wouldn't mind
> sharing their frustrations and/or visions.

Would they want to write blog posts? Git is very much email driven
community...

[...]
> For b) I just need interested people to send me their emails.

To apply for accounts, isn't it?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland

Casual observers (was Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49)

[Jean-Rene David]

* Junio C Hamano [2008.12.05 16:00]:
> "Git Traffic" was great because it attempted to
> directly address the issue that the traffic on
> the mailing list was simply too high (and still
> is) to follow for casual observers.  It did so
> by giving a comprehensive summary of what
> important topics were discussed 
> [...]

While I agree having a summary of the discussions
that took place on the list is great (and I would
read it), what I would really like is a
'git-users' list.

The traffic here is very developper-oriented and
there isn't much room for casual, beginner-level
discussion on the use of git. A lot of projects
work that way and I think it's a really useful
segregation. And it's really not a lot of work to
setup...

I, for one, don't feel comfortable asking beginner
question here (perhaps wrongly).

My two cents.

-- 
JR

Re: Casual observers (was Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49)

[Edward Z. Yang]

Jean-Rene David wrote:
> I, for one, don't feel comfortable asking beginner
> question here (perhaps wrongly).

The #git channel on freenode.net is a great place to ask questions like
that; there's almost always someone around, and you get instant feedback
too. :-)

Cheers,
Edward

Re: Casual observers (was Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49)

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

On Friday 2008 December 05 21:53, Jean-Rene David wrote:
> I, for one, don't feel comfortable asking beginner
> question here (perhaps wrongly).

Bah, I'll answer them.

I don't think my question that I joined the list to get an answer for was a 
beginner question (maybe; I'm rarely a good judge of my skills), but (since 
there's no other list) I feel justified asking and answering questions here.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Nanako Shiraishi]

Quoting "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>> ...
>> First, "Official git blog"? Official? There is nothing official about
>> it. "Unofficial git blog", or "A git developer blog" (or "A git
>> follower blog"; unfortunately names like gitter or gitster for git
>> power user's, like TeXnician for TeX users, are taken by nicknames on
>> #git, if I remember correctly).  Only git maintainer (Junio Hamano)
>> and git development community (the git mailing list) can decide that
>> something is "official" resource.
>
> I asked in the mailing list and the only comment I got was: go ahead.
> So yeah, that doesn't look like an "official" blessing, but it's not
> bad either.

According to "http://marc.info/?t=121985955200002&r=1&w=2", you mentioned "Planet Git" and only one response other than yours on the topic was somebody offering server hosting space, so no, sorry, I do not see any evidence that your post produced any positive or negative feedback.

But I think this, if done right, is a great idea and everybody will welcome "Planet Git" as the "official weblog aggregator".  I think a true "Git News" that is written by somebody to summarize the happenings in the Git land in a coherent voice would be much more preferable, but that takes real work (which you may or may not be interested in), and aggregated blog would be the best thing we can have without too much effort.

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Nanako Shiraishi]

Quoting "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>:

> Expecting people to apply for an account and write for that page would not
> fly.  As Felipe said himself, many people already have their own blog.
>
> Having said all that, I am not sure "Planet" would work for the git
> community as well as it would for others.  I do not know of many core-ish
> people write on git on their blogs (and I know at least two core-ish
> people who flatly say "blogging is a waste of time").

But are you not "core-ish", with your own pages?

  http://gitster.livejournal.com/tag/git

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/

Re: Git weekly news: 2008-49

[Junio C Hamano]

Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> writes:

> Quoting "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>:
>
>> Expecting people to apply for an account and write for that page would not
>> fly.  As Felipe said himself, many people already have their own blog.
>>
>> Having said all that, I am not sure "Planet" would work for the git
>> community as well as it would for others.  I do not know of many core-ish
>> people write on git on their blogs (and I know at least two core-ish
>> people who flatly say "blogging is a waste of time").
>
> But are you not "core-ish", with your own pages?
>
>   http://gitster.livejournal.com/tag/git

Eh, yes but I do not write about git very often.  It is more useful to
mine the mailing list archive than following the above URL if somebody is
interested in my thoughts on git.