Hi folks, it seems that nobody has brought this up, but isn't it time to
switch to Git and GitHub?
FreeImage would reap great benefits from the easy branching offered by Git,
and I suspect that it would attract a lot more code contributions by virtue of
being visible on GitHub and the seamless nature of pull requests.
I'd be willing to help with any migration questions or concerns.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I also would like to see this and if you take the help Nathanael offered you it might not need too much work for you.
It would be great to get at least some feedback whether you are interested at all.
Besides all the features git itself offers compared to cvs, also github's forking and creation of pull request will be a great improvement.
The source code for the c++ lib and the .NET wrapper could be split up into separated repositories which makes forking even easier.
Would be great to some action or discussion about this.
Best Regards,
Tommy
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'd suggest switching to git and staying at SourceForge, since SourceForge already does everything github does and a whole lot more, and all the bugs and forums and mailing list history is already at SourceForge.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Does SourceForge offer hooks to integrate with CI services drone.io and appveyor.com?
Multi-platform continuous integration is a must-have for me. I need automated builds to react quickly to 0-days in dependencies; I can't always be sure that I can access working build VMs for every platform I support.
GitHub, combined with CI, makes it easy to accept pull requests, as the test status for each request is updated within minutes.
GitHub is also great for project discovery.
It's important to keep FreeImage development somewhere 'accessible', we don't want contributions to trail off. CVS is a deal-breaker for most developers I know.
I would love to coordinate with staff on a migration to Git (and preferably GitHub), but if they can't join the conversation, I'll go ahead and mirror to GitHub to meet my aforementioned CI needs.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
GIT is basically a deal-breaker for other developers. CVS works and fulfills my needs just fine. Dealing with the cruft that is GitHub and trying to check things out just doesn't work with the projects I use FreeImage for. Stay at SourceForge!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Me, for one. Where are your "most developers you know"? Obviously not the people I know.
I've used both CVS and Git, under Linux and Windows both. I don't need anything fancy. CVS works easier for the projects I use it for. CVS isn't dead, perhaps it just works well enough for exactly what it is intended for and doesn't have any bugs that need patching? Anyway, I don't see the point in trying to fix what isn't broke. FreeImage doesn't need GitHub in my opinion.
Last edit: Ryan Rubley 2014-10-06
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Frankly, this is the first time I've had to convince someone of the merits of anything when compared to CVS. I'm somewhat at a loss. Typically the SVN->Git conversation is more common.
I'll restate my challenge - for every significant open-source project you can point to that is still using CVS, I'll give you 10 that are on Git or GitHub.
In another vein, SourceForge itself is a branding problem.
Stop trying to turn this into a pissing match. The point is that neither SourceForge nor CVS are broken by any means. Everything you've said is more or less your opinion or something completely irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter how many users a service has or where other projects are hosted. If SourceForge and CVS are working for the FreeImage developers, there is no pressing reason to change.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
CVS is broken by design and lack of maintenance. SourceForge is broken by business model choice.
How broken these things are, and how much we care about brokenness is a different thing.
CVS is an extremely high barrier to entry for developers. It does not offer anything truly comparable to pull requests, and does not offer permalinks or acceptable source code browsing. Fundamentally, it discourages community involvement in development. As a user, and someone who wants to contribute, but cannot map his development patterns (test-driven, branch-based) onto this project, it forces me elsewhere. And you'll say "good riddance".
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If you are contributor on FreeImage, and would like to have your corresponding GitHub account linked on the GitHub source mirror, please post your sf username and github username.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2015-02-24
Came here to verify if FreeImage plans to move away from this web platform. Sourceforge served very well in the past, but recently and compared to new offerings it lacks in performance, features, discoverability, security, sustainability and lately stability. Communities largely abandoned it, and apparently the old sf.net staff as well, leaving tickets unanswered.
It is possible to go hybrid by keeping the forums here (and maybe file distribution, though GitHub can do this also - without the CDN. For a CDN, there is bintray.com) and move everything (repo, bug-tracker, homepage) elsewhere. Even though not perfect, Google Groups works better than this forum engine.
We did these moves in another project few years ago and they went without a hitch and turned out to be a definite success.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If FreeImage developers decided SourceForge and CVS works for them, then it works for them, so be it. I am perfectly fine with their decision. If you aren't, then go on and fork again and again, for no other reason but for the love of gihub which is good for nothing.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi folks, it seems that nobody has brought this up, but isn't it time to
switch to Git and GitHub?
FreeImage would reap great benefits from the easy branching offered by Git,
and I suspect that it would attract a lot more code contributions by virtue of
being visible on GitHub and the seamless nature of pull requests.
I'd be willing to help with any migration questions or concerns.
I also would like to see this and if you take the help Nathanael offered you it might not need too much work for you.
It would be great to get at least some feedback whether you are interested at all.
Besides all the features git itself offers compared to cvs, also github's forking and creation of pull request will be a great improvement.
The source code for the c++ lib and the .NET wrapper could be split up into separated repositories which makes forking even easier.
Would be great to some action or discussion about this.
Best Regards,
Tommy
I'd suggest switching to git and staying at SourceForge, since SourceForge already does everything github does and a whole lot more, and all the bugs and forums and mailing list history is already at SourceForge.
Does SourceForge offer hooks to integrate with CI services drone.io and appveyor.com?
Multi-platform continuous integration is a must-have for me. I need automated builds to react quickly to 0-days in dependencies; I can't always be sure that I can access working build VMs for every platform I support.
GitHub, combined with CI, makes it easy to accept pull requests, as the test status for each request is updated within minutes.
GitHub is also great for project discovery.
It's important to keep FreeImage development somewhere 'accessible', we don't want contributions to trail off. CVS is a deal-breaker for most developers I know.
I would love to coordinate with staff on a migration to Git (and preferably GitHub), but if they can't join the conversation, I'll go ahead and mirror to GitHub to meet my aforementioned CI needs.
GIT is basically a deal-breaker for other developers. CVS works and fulfills my needs just fine. Dealing with the cruft that is GitHub and trying to check things out just doesn't work with the projects I use FreeImage for. Stay at SourceForge!
Who are these "other developers"? CVS is dead - hasn't had any activity in 6 years: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/cvs/source/stable/1.11.17/
What major projects still use CVS? What cruft are you referring to?
Me, for one. Where are your "most developers you know"? Obviously not the people I know.
I've used both CVS and Git, under Linux and Windows both. I don't need anything fancy. CVS works easier for the projects I use it for. CVS isn't dead, perhaps it just works well enough for exactly what it is intended for and doesn't have any bugs that need patching? Anyway, I don't see the point in trying to fix what isn't broke. FreeImage doesn't need GitHub in my opinion.
Last edit: Ryan Rubley 2014-10-06
GitHub alone has more active users than SourceForge has signed up since its inception.
Common users? Well, the kernel -> https://github.com/torvalds/linux Most NoSql databases -> https://github.com/showcases/nosql-databases Every popular javascript framework ever made -> https://github.com/showcases/front-end-javascript-frameworks
Even many governments have taken to using GitHub: https://github.com/showcases/government
Frankly, this is the first time I've had to convince someone of the merits of anything when compared to CVS. I'm somewhat at a loss. Typically the SVN->Git conversation is more common.
I'll restate my challenge - for every significant open-source project you can point to that is still using CVS, I'll give you 10 that are on Git or GitHub.
In another vein, SourceForge itself is a branding problem.
SourceForge, in many people's opinion, has become an adware purveyor: http://sourceforge.net/blog/devshare-relaunch-power-to-end-users/
SourceForge shouts "abandonware" to visitors, even when it's not true.
SourceForge lags decades behind other services when it comes to tooling and modern functionality (and security).
There's also far fewer visitors coming along. I still have a project on SourceForge, but only because it's essentially dead at this point. https://sourceforge.net/projects/quickkeydotnet/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-09-30+to+2014-10-06
It's certainly not the place developers look for projects they want to use in their apps.
Stop trying to turn this into a pissing match. The point is that neither SourceForge nor CVS are broken by any means. Everything you've said is more or less your opinion or something completely irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter how many users a service has or where other projects are hosted. If SourceForge and CVS are working for the FreeImage developers, there is no pressing reason to change.
CVS is broken by design and lack of maintenance. SourceForge is broken by business model choice.
How broken these things are, and how much we care about brokenness is a different thing.
CVS is an extremely high barrier to entry for developers. It does not offer anything truly comparable to pull requests, and does not offer permalinks or acceptable source code browsing. Fundamentally, it discourages community involvement in development. As a user, and someone who wants to contribute, but cannot map his development patterns (test-driven, branch-based) onto this project, it forces me elsewhere. And you'll say "good riddance".
If you are contributor on FreeImage, and would like to have your corresponding GitHub account linked on the GitHub source mirror, please post your sf username and github username.
Came here to verify if FreeImage plans to move away from this web platform. Sourceforge served very well in the past, but recently and compared to new offerings it lacks in performance, features, discoverability, security, sustainability and lately stability. Communities largely abandoned it, and apparently the old sf.net staff as well, leaving tickets unanswered.
It is possible to go hybrid by keeping the forums here (and maybe file distribution, though GitHub can do this also - without the CDN. For a CDN, there is bintray.com) and move everything (repo, bug-tracker, homepage) elsewhere. Even though not perfect, Google Groups works better than this forum engine.
We did these moves in another project few years ago and they went without a hitch and turned out to be a definite success.
Our fork is here: https://github.com/imazen/freeimage
Most of our changes will be focused on better unit tests, CI, windows support, C# wrappers, and improving scaling quality.
Has the opinion of the maintainers changed re: sourceforge as a safe place to distribute software?
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/sourceforge-grabs-gimp-for-windows-account-wraps-installer-in-bundle-pushing-adware/
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/06/01/1241231/sourceforge-and-gimp-updated
Despite public announcements to the contrary, it appears sf is still injecting adware-installing wrappers into downloads.
For the love of sanity, PLEASE provide git access! I don't care where!
For the sake of contributions, any Decentralized VCS would be better than CVS.
@Nathaneal Jones
I went to your github page, but it seems it is very outdated. Are you still maintaining it?
If FreeImage developers decided SourceForge and CVS works for them, then it works for them, so be it. I am perfectly fine with their decision. If you aren't, then go on and fork again and again, for no other reason but for the love of gihub which is good for nothing.