Am 18.08.2021 um 00:17 schrieb Cousin Ricky:

> The problem is that GitHub does not appear to support any of these
> capabilities.  All searches on GitHub wrappers yield only repositories
> of wrappers tailored for specific software, having nothing to do with
> Git.  Searches on submodules yields lots of user discussion about Git
> commands, but no documentation from GitHub, and no indication that
> submodules are even applicable to GitHub.  I do not need or want offline
> Git capabilities;

While the GitHub web interface alone may be sufficient for an occasional 
small contribution here and there (by now; even that hadn't always been 
the case) in which only a single file is changed; but for anything 
beyond that, I'd really recommend using a proper Git UI on your machine 
(which may just be the `git` command-line interface, or a 3rd party 
GUI), which (by Git's design) invariably also means a having local 
repository.

Of course not all UIs support advanced Git features, but the more 
advanced ones go far beyond what GitHub has implemented in their web 
interface (or their own rudimentary Git UI called GitHub Desktop)

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 already have my projects organized locally in
> folders, and to bring in an SCM would be more effort that it's worth at
> this time.

An SCM is exactly what Git is, so I'm rather puzzled?!


> I want organization on GitHub, and even if I did reorganize
> my local POV-Ray directory tree to use Git, I see no indication that
> this organization could be uploaded intact.

If you "upload" the stuff (or "commit" and "push", as the technical 
terms would be) using some arbitrary Git interface that supports 
submodules/subtrees, that hierarchy _will_ end up intact on the GitHub repo.

Whether that hierarchy is also exposed to the user is another matter; 
but I recommend that you see for yourself.

Here's an example of how GitHub themselves use _submodules_ in one of 
their own projects, `linguist`, a tool they use to detect the 
programming language of files in a repository; each folder in its 
`vendor/grammars` directory is actually a submodule:

https://github.com/github/linguist/tree/master/vendor/grammars

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-18 4:44 AM (-4), clipka wrote:
> Am 18.08.2021 um 00:17 schrieb Cousin Ricky:
> 
>> [...]  I do not need or want offline
>> Git capabilities;
> 
> While the GitHub web interface alone may be sufficient for an occasional
> small contribution here and there (by now; even that hadn't always been
> the case) in which only a single file is changed; but for anything
> beyond that, I'd really recommend using a proper Git UI on your machine
> (which may just be the `git` command-line interface, or a 3rd party
> GUI), which (by Git's design) invariably also means a having local
> repository.

Would I have to uproot my existing local directory tree?

>> I already have my projects organized locally in
>> folders, and to bring in an SCM would be more effort that it's worth at
>> this time.
> 
> An SCM is exactly what Git is, so I'm rather puzzled?!

I mean I don't need an SCM on my local machine.  I vaguely recall having
to use one on the job many years ago, and I seem to have spent as much
time wrestling with the SCM as I did writing code.  They confuse the
hell out of me, which would seem to defeat their own purpose.

>> I want organization on GitHub, and even if I did reorganize
>> my local POV-Ray directory tree to use Git, I see no indication that
>> this organization could be uploaded intact.
> 
> If you "upload" the stuff (or "commit" and "push", as the technical
> terms would be) using some arbitrary Git interface that supports
> submodules/subtrees, that hierarchy _will_ end up intact on the GitHub
> repo.
> 
> Whether that hierarchy is also exposed to the user is another matter;
> but I recommend that you see for yourself.

The user's view is precisely what I'm concerned about.

> Here's an example of how GitHub themselves use _submodules_ in one of
> their own projects, `linguist`, a tool they use to detect the
> programming language of files in a repository; each folder in its
> `vendor/grammars` directory is actually a submodule:
> 
> https://github.com/github/linguist/tree/master/vendor/grammars

That looks like what I'm looking for.  How do I actually do it?  Is
there a gentle introduction somewhere to how it's done, because GitHub
has only the barest tutorial on how to use its UI, and everything else I
can find, whether in GitHub's docs, GitHub's blog, or third party
instructions, just dumps me into the deep end of the pool.  I seem to
lack an overall conceptual framework of what's going on.

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-18 4:44 AM (-4), 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).

The Web page that recommended GitHub Organizations pointed this out, but
also said that BitBucket's UI was more complicated another Git UI (which
I can't recall at the moment).

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.08.2021 um 18:58 schrieb Cousin Ricky:
> On 2021-08-18 4:44 AM (-4), 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).
> 
> The Web page that recommended GitHub Organizations pointed this out, but
> also said that BitBucket's UI was more complicated another Git UI (which
> I can't recall at the moment).

One thing you really should try to get off your mind is the idea that 
Git repository hosting service == Git desktop user interface.

Those really are two _entirely_ different things.

You can use Atlassian's desktop user interface (Sourcetree) with a 
repository hosted on GitHub. Just like you can use GitHub Inc.'s desktop 
user interface (called GitHub Desktop) with a repository hosted on 
BitBucket (or at least you should be; I haven't actually tested it).

I never liked the web interface of Atlassian's "BitBucket" Git/Mercurial 
reposiory hosting service.

I do like Atlassian's "Sourcetree" Git/Mercurial desktop UI.

I do like the web interface of GitHub Inc.'s "GitHub" repository hosting 
service (even though I agree that there's still quite some room for 
improvement).

I don't like GitHub Inc.'s "GitHub Desktop" desktop UI at all.

Post a reply to this message

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