On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Trans [email protected] wrote:
To me GForge seems very dated. I think GitHub is much better example
of the future. It has most of the features developers need.
I think that GitHub demonstrates many aspects of the model that
RubyForge should head down. I don’t agree that it’s The Future or
should be considered as a potential replacement for RubyForge. For
just one thing, it enforces too much on the user… I like git and use
GitHub, but I also like and use Subversion and have projects that I
don’t want to convert.
In fact, except for mailing lists I’m not sure one actually needs
anything else. Some of Rubyforge’s features are never used such a
Are you sure, though? I have no idea if people use them or not… maybe
nobody does, or the people who do don’t care if they’re removed. The
point I’m trying to make, though, is that it’s better to ask than to
just remove a feature that is assumed to not be in use.
The news feature always seemed a bit redundant to me too, why not just
have a ruby-announce mailing list?
Agreed, and not just because it’s a pain to deal with the news, heh.
And some features can be handled differently, like ticket tracking can
be done with Ditz instead of using a web-based app.
Gross. I don’t want my release system’s bug tracker dropping turds in
my repo. No thanks. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s not a good user
experience for anyone except people who already use it and think it’s
Hek, maybe the GitHub people would be willing to brand a version of
their software for an oss only RubyHub? It might be a good way for
them to drive more proprietary business to their main site and it
would rock (IMHO) for the Ruby community.
I don’t think anyone wins here. Ruby people can just use GitHub as they