Re: git-scm.com website (was: Promoting Git developers)

Re: git-scm.com website (was: Promoting Git developers)

[Shawn Pearce]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
<git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>
> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
> just does not look like a "project home".

Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.

Before it was created by Scott Chacon (and others) there was no
landing page for users looking for information on Git.

After it was created, nobody else stepped up with a better alternative.

Writing a website is hard. I have been struggling to make a better
landing page for Gerrit Code Review[1,2]. I really do understand why
Git C hackers aren't interested in sitting down to write prose, HTML
and CSS.

Many of the folks that have contributed to git-scm.com don't usually
contribute C code, but their contribution to the project has still
been beneficial by providing a landing page.


git-scm.com is controlled by the Git project through its membership
with the Conservancy. It could be redirected to another site if
another site existed that better served end-users and the project
better.


[1] http://code.google.com/p/gerrit
[2] https://gerrit.googlesource.com/homepage/+doc/HEAD/

Re: git-scm.com website

[David Kastrup]

Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
>> just does not look like a "project home".
>
> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.

It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom.  Not
"supporting" but "using".

Linux is point 10 on that list.  The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.

Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
for.

Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.

It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it altogether.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: git-scm.com website

[Shawn Pearce]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
>> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
>>> just does not look like a "project home".
>>
>> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.
>
> It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom.  Not
> "supporting" but "using".
>
> Linux is point 10 on that list.  The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
>
> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
> for.
>
> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
>
> It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
> are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it altogether.

At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:

  This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.
  Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome

And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone
can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of
anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to
git-scm.com.


[1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing

Re: git-scm.com website

[David Kastrup]

Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
>>> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
>>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
>>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
>>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
>>>> just does not look like a "project home".
>>>
>>> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.
>>
>> It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom.  Not
>> "supporting" but "using".
>>
>> Linux is point 10 on that list.  The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
>> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
>>
>> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
>> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
>> for.
>>
>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
>>
>> It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
>> are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it altogether.
>
> At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:
>
>   This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.
>   Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome
>
> And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone
> can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of
> anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to
> git-scm.com.

Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot.  I already understood that category B
is subject to contempt.  Congrats on being category A or C.

> [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing

Turns out that "anyone" is actually "anyone accepting the conditions for
a GitHub account":

    If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub,
    push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request.

I've read the rather longish Terms&Conditions of GitHub and found myself
unwilling to agree to them.  Which does not mean that changing the ways
of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any
sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the "Git
community" should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to
make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website
programming.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: git-scm.com website

[Christian Couder]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:37 PM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
>>>> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
>>>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
>>>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
>>>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
>>>>> just does not look like a "project home".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, git-scm.com is a place to point people.
>>>
>>> It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom.  Not
>>> "supporting" but "using".
>>>
>>> Linux is point 10 on that list.  The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
>>> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
>>>
>>> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
>>> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
>>> for.
>>>
>>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
>>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
>>>
>>> It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
>>> are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it altogether.
>>
>> At the bottom of the git-scm.com page there is this blurb:
>>
>>   This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub.
>>   Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome
>>
>> And that text contains a link to the GitHub repository[1] where anyone
>> can propose modifications to the page. Unfortunately I don't know of
>> anyone paying out contribution stipends for content changes made to
>> git-scm.com.
>
> Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot.  I already understood that category B
> is subject to contempt.  Congrats on being category A or C.
>
>> [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/blob/master/README.md#contributing
>
> Turns out that "anyone" is actually "anyone accepting the conditions for
> a GitHub account":
>
>     If you wish to contribute to this website, please fork it on GitHub,
>     push your change to a named branch, then send a pull request.
>
> I've read the rather longish Terms&Conditions of GitHub and found myself
> unwilling to agree to them.  Which does not mean that changing the ways
> of contributing to the Git website to accommodate me would make any
> sense since obviously I don't have a clue what a member of the "Git
> community" should be proud of and ashamed of and thus would be unable to
> make a meaningful proposal anyway even if I were into website
> programming.

A few other points about git-scm.com:

* as Michael says it "still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site"

* some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want
them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:

https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216

(By the way this pull request talks about bugs in
https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not
fixed...)

It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site
that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can
be rejected because it is not maintained by us.

Re: git-scm.com website

[Scott Chacon]

Hey,

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Christian Couder
<christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few other points about git-scm.com:
>
> * as Michael says it "still looks a bit like a ProGit/Github promotion site"
>
> * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want
> them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:
>
> https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216
>
> (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in
> https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not
> fixed...)
>

It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I
think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it
is maintained "by us". If he had felt strongly about the addition, I
easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was
helpful in a larger sense.

I try very hard to maintain a balance of simplicity and function. This
site is mostly for people new to the project - it helps them see what
Git is for, how to use it well and how to get involved. If you put
everything you can into the site it makes it harder to find other
things that may be more important.

It's also important to remember that a home page is not really
primarily for the people in this list. It's for the people who may one
day be interested in this list and for the far greater number of
people who want to use the end result of the hard work of the people
on this list. It hopefully reduces the support and explanation style
questions that might otherwise be sent to this list by helping to
explain things before people resort to asking you all. It's meant to
be a tool shielding you all from the introductory questions that would
otherwise probably just annoy you.

That all said, if someone is interested in helping with the
maintenance and going over these pull requests, I'm more than happy to
give them access, but I really want to maintain the simplicity and
professional sense of design that we've worked very hard to maintain.
Not every patch that works that comes to Junio is accepted and not
every pull request that comes into the site will be merged for the
same reason - we want to maintain the quality and utility of the
resource. There have been 157 merged pull requests from the community
in the past year or so, 13 of which were from the author you're
mentioning in this example. You pointed to the one pull request out of
14 total patches from Peff that was not merged.

> It is kind of strange to say that we should contribute to a web site
> that promotes ProGit and GitHub a lot and where our contributions can
> be rejected because it is not maintained by us.

Again, if you can point to a GitHub logo on any page of the website, I
would love to see it. And Pro Git is free and read by hundreds of
thousands of people day all over the world and available in dozens of
languages in multiple ebook formats. I would remove the Amazon links
if anyone wishes, but the SFC gets income from it, so I doubt they
would want to.

Scott

Re: git-scm.com website

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:52:34AM -0700, Scott Chacon wrote:

> > * some of the pull request can be rejected even if the developers want
> > them, like this pull request to add back a list of contributors was:
> >
> > https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/216
> >
> > (By the way this pull request talks about bugs in
> > https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors that are still not
> > fixed...)
> >
> 
> It should be noted that Peff has write access to this repository and I
> think the SFC manages the DNS for the site as well, so technically it
> is maintained "by us". If he had felt strongly about the addition, I
> easily could have been convinced to do it, but I didn't think it was
> helpful in a larger sense.

Yes, this. It was _my_ pull request, and as I noted in my final comment,
I agreed with closing it. That is not "rejected", but "withdrawn".

If somebody wants to open their own pull request, they can. But it has
been over 2 years, and I haven't seen anybody talk about this, let alone
offer to work on it.

If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,
especially one targeted at Git _developers_, I don't see a reason not
to. http://git.github.io is where I have been collecting GSoC materials,
and any community member who asks is welcome to have push access (and I
have offered to apply patches for people who do not want to use GitHub).
But aside from that GSoC content, there is nothing there (and the design
is awful; any takers?).

There is also the wiki at http://git.wiki.kernel.org. I prefer the
git.github.io site, because it is easier to manipulate using git, but if
having both is fracturing things, I'd be happy to shut it down.

So if anyone wants to contribute to Git's web presence, it seems there
are quite a few opportunities to do so.

-Peff

Re: git-scm.com website

[David Kastrup]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,

I think that's the basic problem here.  As long as people want to _have_
an alternate site rather than want to _write_ and _maintain_ an
alternate site, any site will only be as representative of the Git
community as the person(s) working on the site feel they are
representative of the Git community.

Scott says that he tried his best to create a neutral site, and that's
what the site is.  When a guardian votes instead of his ward in an
election, he might vote different from his own vote in order to better
reflect the interest of his ward.  It may still well be different from
who the ward would have voted for.

For me, the Git-scm site has the air of a third-party site, and that's
what it is essentially.  I don't see that Scott could do any better here
when basically left on his own and it seems pointless to complain to him
about that.

That is one case where the "central repository" approach has at least
some psychological advantage over the "one personal repository is what
is considered canonical" approach used by the Linux kernel, Git, the
Git-scm site and possibly by most of the GitHub hosted projects: with a
central repository, there is somewhat less of a feeling that one person
"owns" the project (even admin rights come into play only for
exceptional circumstances rather than everyday work).  Possibly that
makes it a bit harder to say "not my field of responsibility".

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: git-scm.com website

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

David Kastrup wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>> If people don't like git-scm.com and want to have an alternate site,
>
> I think that's the basic problem here.

With all due respect:

I don't actually see a major problem here.  Any serious problems with
the site can be fixed by people submitting patches, either using
Github's UI or to the mailing list if Github's UI doesn't work for
them.  People can also try mocking up an alternative site if they have
a radical change they'd like to try, and the centrally managed DNS
entry points to whichever site is appropriate.

The old git website was git.or.cz.  That redirects to git-scm.com now.
You can see the old front page at git.or.cz/index.html (and there is a
link to the corresponding git repository near the bottom).  People
with spare time who find content on that site to migrate over are
welcome to try doing so (hint, hint).

Thanks,
Jonathan

Re: git-scm.com website

[Scott Chacon]

Hey,

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
> > <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
> >> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
> >> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
> >> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
> >> just does not look like a "project home".

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make
sure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the
string "GitHub" occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it
says "This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub."  I don't even
mention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon
referrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom
Conservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It
also very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's
entirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally,
since I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the
eBook downloads).

I'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a "project home". It
has basically all the same information on it that you would find on
any other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads,
source code, documentation, a book, community and development
information, etc. These are basically all the same things found on
sites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or
https://subversion.apache.org/.

>
> It features "Companies & Projects Using Git" at the bottom.  Not
> "supporting" but "using".
>
> Linux is point 10 on that list.  The first 6 items are Google, facebook,
> Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Netflix.
>
> Even for an OpenSource project that does not buy into the Free Software
> philosophy, that is a mostly embarrassing list of companies to advertise
> for.

Well, there are 16 groups listed on that page and 10 are open source
projects and the remaining 6 are large companies using Git and open
sourcing things using it. The idea of the list is to give people new
to Git confidence that it is widely adopted both in the open source
and corporate worlds. I also am not sure what's "embarrassing" about
these companies - they all heavily participate in the open source
community and many of them sponsor development of projects like Linux
and Git.

>
> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.

I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me
to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought
they were still a bzr shop.

>
> It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
> are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it altogether.

Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see
some important corporations that are using it, since many people
coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to
switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large
companies are participating in the open source community and it may
help them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well,
which I think is beneficial to everyone.

Scott

Re: git-scm.com website

[Stefan Beller]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since those
> > are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it altogether.
> Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see
> some important corporations that are using it, since many people
> coming to the page are doing research to figure out if they want to
> switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates that these large
> companies are participating in the open source community and it may
> help them decide to open source internal corporate projects as well,
> which I think is beneficial to everyone.

Yeah I'd agree on that. I'd even go a step further and claim it would be best
to show projects and companies coming from most different branches of
business.

("Can I switch my business over to Git? Oh well only these internet hacker
companies are using it, I -as an air drier firmware writer shop-
cannot relate to,
so I keep using RCS.")

Also looking at the open source projects, most of them seem to me as
large-ish umbrella projects, so a smaller(?) project like emacs would be
huge win to show off Git can work well with all kinds of projects.

Re: git-scm.com website

[David Kastrup]

Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
>
> I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me
> to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought
> they were still a bzr shop.

I don't know who "you guys" is, but it would be my guess that
Stallman/FSF would not be enthused to see the Emacs logo added to that
particular list.

Emacs used Bzr particularly to promote an alternative to Git more open
to the free software philosophy promoted by the FSF.  Once Bzr
development became non-responsive and Canonical turned it more into a
Canonical-owned rather than a community project, it became sort of
pointless to stick with a technically less popular choice.

So Emacs fairly recently switched to Git.

So it's sort of a screaming and kicking endorsement.  Some people would
claim that those are the best, but it does not really fit well with the
spirit of this front page.

>> It might make sense to reduce this list just to "Projects" since
>> those are actually more tangible and verifiable.  Or scrap it
>> altogether.
>
> Sorry, I disagree with this. I think it's helpful for people to see
> some important corporations that are using it,

Where is the point if they don't see how or in what scale?

> since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out
> if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates
> that these large companies are participating in the open source
> community

Uh no, it doesn't.  "Uses $x" does not constitute participation.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: git-scm.com website

[Stefan Beller]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> since many people coming to the page are doing research to figure out
>> if they want to switch to it in their companies. It also demonstrates
>> that these large companies are participating in the open source
>> community
>
> Uh no, it doesn't.  "Uses $x" does not constitute participation.
>

I am unsure what the intend of the site is or should be?

Do we want to convince other people to use it as in "everybody
else uses it, so should you" or rather point out you can participate
in the (development-) community as in "we got contributions from
these companies and projects, you could also steer git in a direction
you want by participating?"

Re: git-scm.com website

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Personally, I consider the recent migration of the Emacs repository to
>>> Git a bigger endorsement but then that's me.
>>
>> I would love to have Emacs on that page, actually. If you guys want me
>> to add that, I'm happy to. I didn't know they moved over, I thought
>> they were still a bzr shop.
>
> I don't know who "you guys" is, but it would be my guess that
> Stallman/FSF would not be enthused to see the Emacs logo added to that
> particular list.
>
> Emacs used Bzr particularly to promote an alternative to Git more open
> to the free software philosophy promoted by the FSF.  Once Bzr
> development became non-responsive and Canonical turned it more into a
> Canonical-owned rather than a community project, it became sort of
> pointless to stick with a technically less popular choice.
>
> So Emacs fairly recently switched to Git.

I might add that the abysmal performance of git-blame on Emacs'
src/xdisp.c was given as one fairly important argument against switching
to Git, and in consequence I promised to take a look at it.  Git runs
about a factor of 4 faster on src/xdisp.c now, but I can safely say that
I consider letting myself get involved here a rather expensive mistake.

Live and learn.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: git-scm.com website

[Michael J Gruber]

Scott Chacon venit, vidit, dixit 09.03.2015 18:14:
> Hey,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Michael J Gruber
>>> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since we're talking business: git-scm.com still looks a bit like a
>>>> ProGit/Github promotion site. I don't have anything against either, and
>>>> git-scm.com provides a lot of the information that users are looking
>>>> for, and that are hard to find anywhere else; it's a landing page. It
>>>> just does not look like a "project home".
> 
> I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I've tried pretty hard to make
> sure the site is as neutral as possible. The only actual place the
> string "GitHub" occurs on the landing page is at the bottom where it
> says "This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub."  I don't even
> mention anywhere that GitHub pays for hosting it. Also, all the Amazon
> referrals from Pro Git sales are donated to the Software Freedom
> Conservancy and all my personal royalties are donated to charity. It
> also very clearly states that the book is free to read online in it's
> entirety (which is actually relatively expensive for me personally,
> since I personally pay the S3 hosting and bandwidth costs for all the
> eBook downloads).
> 
> I'm not sure why you think it doesn't look like a "project home". It
> has basically all the same information on it that you would find on
> any other project home page: a description, direct links to downloads,
> source code, documentation, a book, community and development
> information, etc. These are basically all the same things found on
> sites like http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ or
> https://subversion.apache.org/.

Since quotes from several people got put together here and below (which
I cut out), I'd just like to reemphasize that I "don't have anything
against either", as I wrote. Github has done a lot to promote Git - as a
business, sure, but why not, and Git as a project has profited from
that, too. It goes without saying that stating "Hosted on Github" is
appropriate, not just because git-scm.com is hosted there, but because
it shows what kind of services Git empowers.
And I don't mind a listing of companies that use Git - it's not an
endorsement of those companies, rather the other way round. (I hope it's
legally OK to use their names and logos for that, I'm not a laywer, but
I'm confident you've checked.)

"This is the web application for the git-scm.com site. It is meant to be
the first place a person new to Git will land and download or learn
about the Git SCM system." says the README, and that's what the site is.
A landing page for people new to Git. It's good that we have one.

Maybe my use of the term "project home" was misleading. What I meant is:
it's not a home *for* the developer community. That's just a factual
statement without assigning blame. For example, Documentation/technical
is not linked there, and the blog doesn't carry release announcements or
Junio's technical posts. Development discussions take place on the
mailing list, and when we talk about user experience, it's UI and man
pages that we have in mind, not git-scm.com. When we need a web page for
GSoC or such, it's "something on github" that at least mentally is not
part of git-scm.com.

Now, unfortunately, git-scm.com is also not *from* the developer
community, if you define "developer := git ml regular" (and not :=
mostly not) and look at
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/graphs/contributors. There's probably
no point in going into the historical reasons for that - after all,
we're not all German ;)

Seriously, I think "we" could try to put more stuff on git-scm.com.
Having GSoC and microprojects stuff ported there would be nice, I guess
that would require someone who knows a bit about the underlying web app
to get the framework right.

Maybe there's a painless way to get release announcements or similar
posts on the blog, so that there is more visible activity? Or collect
some external blogs?

I'm a no-ruby-no-rails guy, sorry, but I'll commit at least to looking
over some content especially in the man page/documentation area.

Michael