Repository for CPC sources.

[m_dr_m]

I'm thinking of new sources and project in development, but the question would remains valid for older stuff.

Which hosting solution to use?
Some people boycott github since owned by microsoft.
On the contrary, I think we should use it, since it costs them money, and they owe us an awful lot of it.


What are your thoughts?

[GUNHED]

I loathe Github because it's quite the opposite of being intuitive. It makes a lot of troubles, conversions between Windows and Unix character sets suxx big time. Dozend of times I did download firmware and install it - only to see the Github suxx!

Sorry, that's probably not what you want to hear, but iMHO it's the worst solution. IMHO every FTP is just fine - as long as one can click at a file, download it and it's inside what's promised to be inside.

But maybe I'm just to old and stupid to work with Github. 

[shaymanjohn]

Github definitely gets my vote - atic-atac cpc is on there. Can see commit history, pull requests, releases can be tagged etc.


Not sure about Gunheds problem with windows/unix, I've never had an issue - but maybe that's because there aren't many CPC projects up there, think I've only used mine from there (I use Mac).

[andycadley]

Git as a source control mechanism is pretty much the defacto method these days, and certainly head and shoulders above just sharing files without any kind of versioning at all. Set up correctly it should automatically handle converting text files between Windows/Unix conventions (which can be a double edge sword) but it's reasonably flexible so that sort of thing can be disabled if it creates other problems.

[reidrac]

I'm with git. Whatever is the hosting, doesn't matter much as long as I can clone the repo. What I really don't like is a code dump on a ZIP file, without history (and in some cases not even portable). Not that I don't usually consume source code from others, mostly tools (inc. emulators).

I use Bitbucket for my private projects, and a mixture of GH and GitLab for the public ones.

[johnlobo]

Github +1

[pelrun]

I loathe Github because it's quite the opposite of being intuitive. It makes a lot of troubles, conversions between Windows and Unix character sets suxx big time.

The only thing that affects line endings is your local git configuration. Github has nothing to do with it.

[krusty_benediction]

I loathe Github because it's quite the opposite of being intuitive. It makes a lot of troubles, conversions between Windows and Unix character sets suxx big time. Dozend of times I did download firmware and install it - only to see the Github suxx!

It comes more from git than github

[krusty_benediction]

On the contrary, I think we should use it, since it costs them money, and they owe us an awful lot of it.

are you sure ? Initially private repositories were not free at all.
If you want to stick to a specific web-frontend for git, I would suggest gitlab that can be hosted by public/private website.

[m_dr_m]

Oh, I'm talking about public / open-source anyway (sharing is caring).
They have infrastructure cost for it.


Private/Big companies have to pay a subscription.
So you could say those pay for the open-source hosting.
I'm not sure it's profitable anyway. The only reason microsoft bought github is that they lost less money by buying it than by paying the annual fees!

[zhulien]

I loathe Github because it's quite the opposite of being intuitive. It makes a lot of troubles, conversions between Windows and Unix character sets suxx big time. Dozend of times I did download firmware and install it - only to see the Github suxx!

Sorry, that's probably not what you want to hear, but iMHO it's the worst solution. IMHO every FTP is just fine - as long as one can click at a file, download it and it's inside what's promised to be inside.

But maybe I'm just to old and stupid to work with Github. 

My thoughts exactly with GIT / GIThub.


I like SVN though, that is intuitive.  I had started creating a dev tool (among others), but it isn't quite the same as those either.


The idea behind it is... you create modules and can include modules like a hierarchy, but when you build, it automatically grabs the latest versions of each module (or a frozen version if you choose).  Since all code history is kept - in my case in full as the algorithms for diffs and merging are very complicated beyond me.


In addition to code, would also have assets such as graphics etc.  The devtool is web based but that could integrate with a CPC + M4 nicely.

Currently the dev tool shows JS, but for most part (except the current TEST and RUN functions) it is language agnostic.


I was planning on allowing developers to share modules, basically it could allow a large library of functions with automatic dependency inclusion.

[m_dr_m]

I agree git is a pita.
Ideally we wouldn't see/use any git command.
The goal is to make it transparent via a bridge (ftp to git/svn/mercurial/arc/pijul), as discussed here: https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/applications/git-proxy-for-cpc/

[Curlypaul]

Another GIT fan here I'm afraid!

Although I agree that githubs UI isn't my favourite, it's where I've put my stuff so far. I'll have a look at gitlabs for an upcoming project that needs to be private though, don't think we'll need a pr process which seems to be the things people complain about the most