Re: [Docutils-develop] 2014: Docutils, sourceforge and migrating to github.

[Guenter M. <mi...@us...>]

Dear Docutils friends, dear Tony,

thank you for speaking up. The impression of Docutils as a "ghost town" is
not completely out of the way. Most core developers have far less time to
spend on docutils nowadays than in the past and have a preference of keeping
it functional (works for me). The interesting development goes on at Sphinx
or other places. This may be a good thing (Docutils as the "rock solid" base
for other stuff) but may also be a sign of decay.

On 2014-01-21, Tony N wrote:

> I wanted to get a status report on where things stand with VCS and a home
> for docutils.

> To begin, I have a few issues with source forge:

...

> 4. The current work flow works. But, I don't think it's true. I think
>    there are people who don't want to criticize, or people who just see
>    docutils website and (sorry here) think it's a dead ghost town.
>    That's my first impression when I see it. To people who used SF for
>    a decade, this may not make sense, but this place honestly sucks. To
>    other people who are newer to python, they may not be talking, but
>    it scares them off or confuses them.

I see 3 distinct issues:

a) website
b) VC system
c) provider

to a) website

I agree that the website can be improved. My plan is to use Sphinx for
the Docutils documentation: 
       
* the website should also be a showcase for Docutils and rSt but 
  Docutils is intended for stand-alone documents without proper support
  for complete projects/sites.

* Sphinx is the most popular Docutils extension providing an advanced
  documentation framework for more complex projects. As Sphinx builds on
  Docutils, a Sphinx-built site is still a showcase for our project.

to b) VC system

> I have issues with subversion. Its positive is simplicity. On the other
> hand, it lacks many of the conveniences git has. It's actually nice to have
> a decentralized system. The workflow for branches is nice. It's fast. In
> 2014, I think it's safe to say many developers know how to use it.

I also prefer git over SVN. I would agree if someone would undertake the
move to a git-based repository, however it is not as high on my priority
list that I personally would like to put many time and effort in it. Many
of the advantages are also available via git-svn.

c) the provider

> I don't find the interface friendly.  It's inconsistent. I am not up to
> date with it, because everyone else is using something else.

...

The conception of "everyone" varies widely. For me, github would mean one
more site to learn (to SF, BerliOS, repo.or.cz, ...)

But most important: SF is the home of Docutils for "ages".

     Cool URIs don't change
     
     -- Tim BL <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html>

> I have a preference for github and git. I like their interface for browsing
> source, pull requests, issues. I think github's pull requests and issue
> system is very contributor friendly.

Docutils is a system with great emphasis on stability and overal
consistency. With all core developers short on spare time, we need a
developer-friendly system that makes dealing with proposals, patches and bug
reports easy for the developers to avoid building up a heap of unprocessed
issues.

For me, a better organized and navigable web site has priority over other
changes to the "PR".

Thanks,

Günter