On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:44:04 +0200, clipka wrote:

> My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
> behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
> both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
> from the GUI).

I'd second that.  Sourcetree is amazing for those who don't like CLI, and 
for even those who do, it is very useful.



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:21:26 -0400, Bald Eagle wrote:

> Didn't Microsoft / Bill "Gates of Hell" gobble that up?

Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for years.



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 21:45:27 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:21:26 -0400, Bald Eagle wrote:
> 
>> Didn't Microsoft / Bill "Gates of Hell" gobble that up?
> 
> Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for years.

(But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2021 11:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'd second that.  Sourcetree is amazing for those who don't like CLI, and
> for even those who do, it is very useful.

Thirded. I've used sourcetree in my day job and it's a good tool. Don't 
use it anymore as we shifted to SmartGit, but they are roughly equivalent.

The only time I don't use a GUI for git is for basic change management 
on the povray server. For that the CLI is fine.

While a UI isn't a requirement for using git, having one makes managing 
more complex projects way easier.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2021 11:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)

Which is a good thing, in a way. While I'm not a great fan of Microsoft, 
they do seem to be keeping their fingers out of interfering with github, 
which makes perfect sense when you think of it.

Some of us will remember the time that SourceForge was the place for 
open-source projects to host public repositories, and will also know 
what happened when SF got sold to someone who didn't really care about 
software but just wanted to make a quick buck regardless of the damage done.

They started used techniques such as dark design patterns to trick 
people who just wanted to download the latest version of, say, GIMP to 
instead download something else entirely (I know of a few people who got 
trapped by this and ended up with PUP's on their systems). They even 
went as far as wrapping some projects legitimate installer inside their 
*own* installer which would install junkware before running the 'real' 
installer.

These tactics quickly *nuked* sourceforge's reputation and developers 
abandoned the site in droves. It has never recovered from this (and 
never will, even though it's under new ownership).

See 
https://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/

if you're interested in more background on what happened to SF.

Now someone may wonder how this relates to a discussion about GitHub and 
its ownership, and my answer is that it relates a *lot*. GitHub isn't 
unique; it's not created or run by the makers of Git. it's just a 
open-source software hosting site - like SourceForge is/was.

Microsoft bought it because they saw it as a good investment as it had 
become a popular destination for OSS projects and their own OSS host 
(CodePlex) wasn't doing nearly as well (and in fact they since shut it 
down).

GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While 
it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology 
(Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project 
just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and 
would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn 
investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

Just as importantly they're *also* so cashed up they they are unlikely 
to ever say "we need a few extra dollars, let's sell GitHub" - meaning 
GH is unlikely to ever end up in the hands of anyone who wants to make a 
quick buck regardless of the damage done to the reputation of the site 
(which is what happened to SourceForge).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.08.2021 um 04:41 schrieb Chris Cason:

> GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While 
> it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology 
> (Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project 
> just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and 
> would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn 
> investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

As a matter of fact, Microsoft would jeopardize even more than their 
$7bn infestment: GitHub is their test. They are being watched very 
closely by the OSS community. If they'd screw this up, they'd burn not 
only the reputation of GitHub, but also the reputation of everything 
else that's Microsoft, as far as the OSS community goes.

They had been the bad guys in the past, and have been making huge 
efforts to get out of that corner and build a bit of trust with the OSS 
community. Any slip-up with GitHub, and all that hard work would be lost 
in an instant.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> On 20/08/2021 11:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > (But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)
>
> Which is a good thing, in a way. While I'm not a great fan of Microsoft,
> they do seem to be keeping their fingers out of interfering with github,
> which makes perfect sense when you think of it.
> ...
> Microsoft bought it because they saw it as a good investment as it had
> become a popular destination for OSS projects and their own OSS host
> (CodePlex) wasn't doing nearly as well (and in fact they since shut it
> down).
>
> GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While
> it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology
> (Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project
> just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and
> would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn
> investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

while I do wear glasses, could not find rose-tinted ones to fit..  :-)

<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/29/microsofts-github-has-become-magnet-for-thorny-issues-like-riaa.html>

if Microsoft had wanted to be "benign", or even simply "straight", they could
have, for instance, endowed a foundation set up for the purpose, or paid cash.
instead (so I read) the deal was done in shares, making GitHub now a
"stakeholder" interested in Microsoft's future.

and what about <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot>?  will not,
particularly for younger, new users (<30 yrs), a "recommended", quick,
menu-selected "solution" to some bug/coding problem lead, in the end, to greater
homogeneity, less individual "expression"?  (anyone looking at the world with
open eyes must appreciate that industrial-scale mono-cultures, whether
agri-sector or social, tend to damage the very (eco)systems which they exploit
-- for "stakeholder"s advantage, only)

two cents and all that.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:44:04 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
> > My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
> > behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
> > both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
> > from the GUI).
>
> I'd second that.  Sourcetree is amazing for those who don't like CLI, and
> for even those who do, it is very useful.
>
>
>
> --
> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
> besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Nice to see what people use. I had picked git Cola so far. because of one (LX)QT
based linux Machine

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> while I do wear glasses, could not find rose-tinted ones to fit..  :-)

.....

(anyone looking at the world with
> open eyes must appreciate that industrial-scale mono-cultures, whether
> agri-sector or social, tend to damage the very (eco)systems which they exploit
> -- for "stakeholder"s advantage, only)

And at that juncture, one should look for historical trends, commonalities,
patterns, and an abundance of "unrelated" "coincidences".

I have education, experience, and imagination that is increasingly guided whilst
taking the Long View by "Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it
tries to silence good".

Take a look at Big Tech and what they do and how they got the power to do it.

Now extrapolate.

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-18 3:06 AM (-4), jr wrote:
> 
> not sure if this describes you(r situation), from the fossil docs: "ii. Single
> developer with multiple subprojects"
> 
> <https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/whyusefossil.wiki>

That doesn't tell me much, nor does it seem intended to sell Fossil over
Git.

It should be evident that I have no feel whatsoever for what makes a
good or a bad SCM/VCS service (other than whether they push junkware on
your users).  But I've already made an announcement in p.o-c, so you
might say that I am "committed" to GitHub.  And given my historical
difficulties trying to grok such systems, I feel safer with what others
are doing.

Post a reply to this message