On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:By all means! The users might be a bit confused about why you're sending them to #github, but we're happy to help them out if you don't care to. We actually employ a support person to man the channel and help out where he can. Using this same logic, it follows that we GitHub developers would be better suited to hacking on GitHub (which would be good for the git community). There are only so many hours in the day. I've had many a GitHub user tell me that the GitHub interface and functionality helped them finally understand git and feel comfortable switching to it from SVN or CVS. It seems we can help bigger populations of git users by making the site as clear and easy to use as possible, so that is what we choose to do. Can you clarify what you are referring to here? I'm not sure I understand. I totally agree with the direction that 1.5 has taken git. You guys are doing an awesome job with user experience. As I come across usability problems I'll be sure to bring them up here in the future. The problem is that I'm only a casual C coder. It takes me a while to figure out what's going on in the git source. We needed a way to serve public git repositories from a hashed directory structure (e.g. /a/b/c/user/repo.git) and we needed it fast. In a few days worth of coding Erlang, I was able to meet that need (and also add logging and better error messages returned to the client). If I had, as you suggest, created a badly written patch and asked for help on the list, I'd probably still be trying to solve the problem. It's dubious that anyone other than us currently needs to satisfy the hashed directory requirement, and as such I would not assume or expect that anyone would be motivated to spend a bunch of time helping a C amateur satisfy that need. In the end I was responsible for making it work, and I did that the best and most efficient way I knew how. Like I said before, I'm happy to share my suggestions for better error messages and logging behavior, but I'm probably not going to be much help with providing patches. This is clearly false and does not do Junio or Shawn justice. It's not hard to imagine that these two (or any of the other contributors) could make money doing training for git at companies that have adopted it, or as consultants to firms that use git in novel ways, or as authors of git books. Scott Chacon gets paid right now to work on tools that use git as an underlying file system. In fact, by helping bring corporate interest to git, GitHub is paving the way for more and more people to make money from git if they so choose. I wouldn't be surprised if, down the road, Junio could be paid to hack on git full time via corporate sponsorship. The continuing advancement of git is of interest to a great many people. Some of which would gladly pay for it. Tom Preston-Werner github.com/mojombo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Amit K. Arora | [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Chuck Ebbert | Why do so many machines need "noapic"? |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
