Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#41

Post by jmkni » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

Nice.

I agree with what the others are saying, there's a lot of source code for solving obscure programs that is only on Sourceforge.

One example I found recently is a program called QLumEdit. I recently had to figure out how to work with EuLumdat files, and if it wasn't for the source code for this program on Sourceforge I would have been completely stumped (well not quite, but it would have taken me ages).

If SF goes down the toilet, a lot of knowledge goes with it so this is awesome to see!

If anybody is interested, I was converting this code from C++ to .net, my horrible hacky unrefactored effort is here - https://github.com/bumblebeeman/eulum.net

I am planning to make this code nicer, and develop it into a WPF app when I have time!

I am getting pretty close too, here is my .net generated version of the images this program produces: http://imgur.com/PCmpnJ2

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#42

Post by jaytaylor » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

What about creating a torrent containing all these unmaintained SF projects (with binary downloads included)?

This would dramatically increase the odds that the content is never lost.

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#43

Post by wslh » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #34

wslh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I received a lot of downvotes but my comment was a bit ironical since in many forums (even in HN in the past) when someone talked about backups many people suggest the block chain. I said: With the current and future block size it will take sometime to make it happen .

The absurdity of that suggestion it not absolved by the fact that someone else has said it before, or by the fact that you said it will take 'some time for it to happen'. It's completely not an option for the migration we're discussing.

It is not absurdity if it is irony and I clearly said that it can't be done now but may be in the future. I can't see the future, do you?

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#44

Post by duskwuff » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #7

Why Github? Copying from one commercial provider to another doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Using git helps, but most of those old repos will never get cloned. In 10 years time, Github may be the tired old service that gets acquired by a hedge fund that decides to monetize their repos. Such things are part of the corporate lifecycle.

Github may be a commercial provider, but at least it's a commercial provider based on an open protocol. If things do start going wrong at Github, escape is a "git clone" and a "git push" away.

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#45

Post by electic » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #44

pavlov wrote: post #7

Why Github? Copying from one commercial provider to another doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Using git helps, but most of those old repos will never get cloned. In 10 years time, Github may be the tired old service that gets acquired by a hedge fund that decides to monetize their repos. Such things are part of the corporate lifecycle.

Github may be a commercial provider, but at least it's a commercial provider based on an open protocol. If things do start going wrong at Github, escape is a "git clone" and a "git push" away.

SVN isn't?

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#46

Post by duskwuff » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

electic wrote: post #45

duskwuff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github may be a commercial provider, but at least it's a commercial provider based on an open protocol. If things do start going wrong at Github, escape is a "git clone" and a "git push" away.

SVN isn't?

A lot of the content on Sourceforge isn't in SVN. I think some of it may still be using CVS, and a lot more is just in the "project files" catch-all.

Also, SVN is a lot more annoying to copy, especially if you want the whole history. Not that it isn't doable, but it's pretty slow and obnoxious. With Git, every clone includes everything by default.

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#47

Post by Sir_Substance » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #44

pavlov wrote: post #7

Why Github? Copying from one commercial provider to another doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Using git helps, but most of those old repos will never get cloned. In 10 years time, Github may be the tired old service that gets acquired by a hedge fund that decides to monetize their repos. Such things are part of the corporate lifecycle.

Github may be a commercial provider, but at least it's a commercial provider based on an open protocol. If things do start going wrong at Github, escape is a "git clone" and a "git push" away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extingui...

https://github.com/blog/1986-announcing-git-large-file-stora...

Githubs strategy is clear.

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#48

Post by jlarocco » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #7

Why Github? Copying from one commercial provider to another doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Using git helps, but most of those old repos will never get cloned. In 10 years time, Github may be the tired old service that gets acquired by a hedge fund that decides to monetize their repos. Such things are part of the corporate lifecycle.

Who cares?

If that happens, the projects can be re-hosted somewhere else. For the time being Github is the best option.

Sometimes the hypothetical situations free software people bring up hurt their cause more than they help.

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#49

Post by carussell » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #38

scrollaway wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 10 years time, Github may be the tired old service that gets acquired by a hedge fund that decides to monetize their repos. Such things are part of the corporate lifecycle. So fix it in 10 years. Git makes that easy. Point me to a good alternative to github that matches all your ideals. A free alternative to github - free as in beer, unless you're willing to fund this effort yourself, of course? We migrated one…

> Point me to a good alternative to github that matches all your ideals. A free alternative to github - free as in beer, unless you're willing to fund this effort yourself, of course? Gitlab? Savannah (of the nongnu.org variety)? Bitbucket? Gitorious? A basic VPS with SSH and git?

The source for Bitbucket is no more available than that for GitHub.

http://atlassian.bitbucket.org/

Re: Show HN: Effort to clone unmaintained SourceForge projects to GitHub

#50

Post by hrehhf » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 7:11 PM UTC

Sir_Substance wrote: post #47

duskwuff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github may be a commercial provider, but at least it's a commercial provider based on an open protocol. If things do start going wrong at Github, escape is a "git clone" and a "git push" away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extingui... https://github.com/blog/1986-announcing-git-large-file-stora... Githubs strategy is clear.

> "Git LFS ... is open sourced under the MIT license."