Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about linking Google code to Google+. Where projects have their own 'Project+' personality and what not. You could even have a 'downloads' like 'Photos' for all the people who don't seem to like GitHub (don't know why but ok). I have tons of more suggestions... of course they will need to be validated :-P
Bring em on! Most of the work on the site is bringing some needed aspects to the fore, but the success of the + launch has spawned some really interesting ideas on how we can help users of the site share aspects of their projects to +.
Code.Google.com now supports git
51–60 of 83 posts
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn't anyone ever think about the users? You know, the ones that just want to grab some binaries and do stuff? In the "old days", projects would have a webpage with some instructions, screenshots and downloadable binaries. The effort required to do this would pay off in terms of polish and would attract more users. Today, people find out about this supposedly nice piece of software, and proceed to find only a s…
Whenever I go to download an open source project, I end up on a web site built for it which has exactly what you mention. GitHub doesn't have those, but GitHub isn't intended to be the first page the end user finds either. GitHub is for developers, and any project that wants to be accessible to non-developers should set up a separate page as well. Nothing wrong with that from what I can see.
Well, you can easily set up a friendly page at username.github.com/project with gh-pages, and link users to there.
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#53I'd say a better link is to the issue we marked 'fixed' : http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=2454 Or to the project creation page: http://code.google.com/hosting/createProject We hope you like it.
So does the backend use Java Git, or some specialized version of C git?
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#54I'd say a better link is to the issue we marked 'fixed' : http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=2454 Or to the project creation page: http://code.google.com/hosting/createProject We hope you like it.
So does the backend use Java Git, or some specialized version of C git?
Why only those two alternatives?
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your #1 reason. When I visit a project page, I most often only want to know what the hell the project is about.
Well, I'm going to say that you already have a gist of what the project is about otherwise why would you be on that repo Unless you were literally randomly clicking. GitHub allows messaging, why not ping the author? Or create an issue "Needs Documentation? Or even contributing to docs?
You seem to be under the impression that the only reason people consume open source projects is because they want the source code. For many use cases, they are simply consumers of applications, not developers. Google Code tries to satisfy both user groups (this is why all the project homepages are in a consistent format, downloads are easily accessible, developers don't have to learn markup to host docs, etc).
While Google Code has some work to do on DVCS features, I still find it far more generally usable and thoughtfully designed than GitHub.
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
For starters: What is the #1 reason to visit a project page? To download the source. Does the #2 reason come even close? No. So why in the world is the repo URL not on the front page, and easy for me to copy/paste into a terminal? Why? Github even has a button that will copy it to the clipboard for you!
Disagree strongly. Every time I get passed a github URL, it plonks me in a daunting page full of source code. If you scroll down a page or 2 sometimes you can see a text README file that tells you WTF the project is about. On Google code, you get a nice UI, telling you about the project, bug tracker, discussions, binaries, AND IF YOU WANT IT the source code. I think github is built for developers, whereas google code…
Almost every worthwhile repo on Github has a README. A lot of them even use markdown. In terms of the source code, Github is for Git users--people that care about the code and commit history. Google Code isn't tied to a single VCS like Github, but it should still be developer-centric. After all, it's Google Code, not some app store.
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#57Google Code's UI needs a lot of work. I just created a test project to try our git functionality. I closed my browser and went to a meeting. After an hour or so I come back, open my browser, and type in code.google.com. I get a nice page but no links to "my projects" or the like. After searching through links on the page I finally had to give up and had to type in the project URL ( http://code.google.com/p/myproject…
ck the "My Favorites" link in upper right
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does the backend use Java Git, or some specialized version of C git?
Why only those two alternatives?
I imagine they may just be the only two that the poster knows about. It's not like it's a radio button poll, though. It's enough to spawn a discussion. Someone that knows can respond in free-form.
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any project on github. Put yourself in the shoes of a user that doesn't want to donwnload source. He lands on a github project page and just gives up. For a regular user (where "regular" depends on the type of software and the technical skill it requires), this is going way back to the days of source sharing on Usenet, way before the open-source term was mainstream (or even coined).
Why would someone go to GitHub if they don't want to download source code? Please, an example.
I agree, and to go further, even _if_ a non-developer did on github (maybe higher in the search rankings), for many popular projects you can generally find the consumer facing url via the "homepage" link.
Example: https://github.com/rack/rack homepage url points to http://rack.rubyforge.org/
https://github.com/tenderlove/nokogiri => http://nokogiri.org/
https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew => http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/
https://github.com/joyent/node => http://nodejs.org/
etc, etc.
It also seems fairly common to put the 'consumer' url near the top or bottom of the README.
Re: Code.Google.com now supports git
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Speaking purely for myself here.) I agree the code is important, but I think a cohesive project is more important. Github presents itself as a giant pastebin for code, with "projects" bolted on. Google Code presents projects first, and puts the code at an even level with every other part: bugtracker, downloads, wiki. (That said, I agree pull requests would be cool.)
That's the problem with Google Code, in my opinion. It tries to be both a landing page and a project manager for my software when I'd rather take care of the former myself. It ends up sucking at both, unfortunately.
check your .html files in to your repo and serve them from projectname.googlecode.com. You can even set your project homepage to redirect there automatically if you are clever.