= Сообщение: 5568 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Alexey Vissarionov 2:5020/545 15 Feb 21 19:42:00 Кому : andrew clarke 15 Feb 21 19:42:00 Тема : Future of ftsc.org web site FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:5020/545+602aa459 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=3:633/267+602a08b2 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== ============================================================================== Good ${greeting_time}, andrew!
15 Feb 2021 16:37:50, you wrote to me:
AV>> These are primarily the git repositories. I'd be happy to use git AV>> for all our needs several years ago (when I was a member of the AV>> FTSC), but some old farts appeared unable to learn ever more simple AV>> things than git and gpg. ac> An old English phrase springs to mind: "You can't teach old dogs new ac> tricks." :-)
So these dogs should be barking somewhere away.
AV>> GitHub is distrusted (they are known to wipe whole projects due to AV>> politically "unreliable" people rarticipating there), so it could AV>> serve only as a mirror. ac> "Perfect is the enemy of good" - Voltaire
"Nothing is perfect" (q) someone else
ac> I have no issue with GitHub and the likelyhood of an FTSC repo being ac> shut down by GitHub is essentially zero, and even if it's non-zero, ac> the point of any repo is that its users have local copies, so it can ac> always be restored one way or another.
Personally I dislike the very idea of using some centralized service.
AV>> Anyway, to do that we have to start using git, so here's a question: AV>> out of all candidates, who is familiar with it? ac> Even if not, Git takes 10 minutes to learn if you're familar with CVS ac> or Subversion. Obviously longer if you've never used revision control ac> software before.
Only for the most trivial tasks and personal use. Collaboration using git appears to be a sort of art...
ac> But I'd like to think all the nominated FTSC members have at least ac> some knowledge of what revision control is, but who knows around ac> here. :-)
I exactly know there are some who would very likely fail doing that.
AV>> Current ${subj} is a bit unfriendly to a search engines, but it's AV>> very friendly to mirroring software like wget. That's not what we AV>> could have with git, but it allows anyone to keep their own FTSC AV>> documents archive. ac> It's pretty rare anyone needs every document.
Yes. But the storage space is cheap, so there's a good reason to mirror everything.
ac> In any case "git clone xyz" will download them all, probably quicker ac> than wget can mirror them,
No.
ac> and you get a complete log of ever commit.
Yes, and this is the main advantage.
ac>>> The Wikipedia entry for FidoNet could also point to both the ac>>> GitHub repo and archive.org snapshot, since they're fairly ac>>> relevant. AV>> Seems unwise. Keeping ftsc.org and adding some mirrors would be AV>> much better. ac> So keep it, but the point I was getting at is that an FTSC repo ac> should encourage feedback, bug reports etc. GitHub (and the other ac> sites like it) give you all that for free.
Feedback and bug reports could be published in the echoareas. Everything else may be done with git itself.
Also, the use of GitHub creates a single point of failure (for example, they would process "DMCA shutdown" requests, while I can safely trash this shit exactly as I did before with hundreds of such requests). That means even if we lose one of mirrors, there would remain other resources.
ac>>> Hosting all the FTSC documents on GitHub would be particularly ac>>> useful since it would allow anyone to write bug reports or file ac>>> "issues" relating to the various FidoNet standards documents, ac>>> which may help any future developers. (Or historians...) AV>> "FidoNet is our primary mode of communication" // (q) AV>> So all reports should go here, to the FTSC_PUBLIC echoarea. Also, AV>> git can work over a netmail... ac> The FTSC should not be in the business of restricting the discussion ac> of its own documents to be within the bounds of FidoNet.
The "F" in "FTSC" stays for "Fidonet".
ac> In any case FTSC_PUBLIC is awful for bug reports in comparison to ac> something like GitHub.
ac> Among other things, it: ac> - is not really public, or is essentially invisible to public without ac> considerable effort
One message to areafix.
ac> - has no archive
One more message to areafix.
ac> - has no search, so the same problems get asked
That's the task of a message reading software.
ac> - has no way to resolve/close bug reports
The FTSC doesn't develop anything, so here should be no bug reports. Even when some documents may contain errors, they could be fixed without any bug tracking facility.
ac> - requires readers to skip non-technical posts (just like this one)
I see you're using Golded. Have you tried pressing the "/" key while reading messages? :-)
-- Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii
