Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

live555.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#71

Post by VLM »

s73v3r wrote: post #54
graycat wrote: post #41

My experience is that for a software development project of just a few people, for a code repository fairly obvious use of the hierarchical file system on a shared server is just fine.

No, it isn't. Especially since it's so damn easy to setup a git or mercurial server.

Whats worse is most of the labor saving benefits like rollbacks, bisection, branch/merge all work just fine if you never type git push. Even just "what have I changed so far, oh git status". The client alone has many benefits.

Time for old guy rant that in the bad old days I just had a box I could ssh into and that was enough, or should I say, that was better than subversion. Don't forget to init the remote repo before pushing into it, as I forgot seemingly every single time. There was life before gitolite, gitlab, and github.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#72

Post by admax88q »

tomjen3 wrote: post #45
hayd wrote: post #27

"As the software is open source, however, hobbyists are also free to use it, but to post to this mailing list, they are expected to demonstrate at least a minimal level of 'cluefulness' by using an email address with their own domain name - not just a generic "@gmail", "@yahoo", etc.-type email address." Makes sense.

Apparently I am no longer a 'clueful' user then. Makes me chokle. Nobody with a clue waste hours setting up their own email server when gmail can do it for you in a few minutes.

I set up my own email server, and I consider myself to have a clue.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#73

Post by to3m »

to3m wrote: post #38
zeeed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). That depends on your job. If you are a software developer, -engineer or similar, I would argue that you should. There are good arguments for version control. - divide & conquer for bugfinding - reconstruction of history - being able to revert back to an older version if/while operations require it - it allows tracking…

It's usual to just put stuff like this in your own version control. Each time you get an update, delete old version, copy new version on top, then sort it out. Perforce has a "Reconcile Offline Work" for exactly this sort of situation; with git or svn, a simple commit will probably do exactly the right thing. This doesn't give you full history, but you get enough to revisit and bisect old versions. (With a touch more…

I don't get where the downvotes came from. All the downvotes in the world can't fix the past, sadly.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#74

Post by hga »

tomjen3 wrote: post #45
hayd wrote: post #27

"As the software is open source, however, hobbyists are also free to use it, but to post to this mailing list, they are expected to demonstrate at least a minimal level of 'cluefulness' by using an email address with their own domain name - not just a generic "@gmail", "@yahoo", etc.-type email address." Makes sense.

Apparently I am no longer a 'clueful' user then. Makes me chokle. Nobody with a clue waste hours setting up their own email server when gmail can do it for you in a few minutes.

I pay Fastmail what's currently going for $40/year for an "Enhanced" personal account that includes using my own personal domain.

Having my own domain avoids problems like, oh, Google going mad about true names with Google+ and shutting down my Gmail account.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#75

Post by admax88q »

efaref wrote: post #30

The quality of their code looks pretty terrible too. For starters, just look at their genMakefiles script (something of a WTF itself - y u no configure?): https://github.com/hackeron/live555/blob/master/genMakefiles It should be more like: os=$1 modules="liveMedia groupsock ..." for module in $modules do /bin/rm -f $module/Makefile cat $module/Makefile.head config.$os $module/Makefile.tail > $module/Makefile chmod a-…

That's a pretty weak example to argue that their code quality is poor.

They didn't bother to set up a for loop, for only 8 iterations. Their version is still perfectly legible, and you don't have to worry as much about shell argument expansion, which nobody really understands fully.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#76

Post by Blackthorn »

Not really sure I understand the problem here? I'm willing to bet that most people ready to excoriate the developer over their lack of version control will probably never even directly use the library.

They are still offering the library as open source in an easily-downloadable form. It is a gift. You can take a gift or you can leave a gift, but you don't whine about how the gift isn't the one you wanted.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#77

Post by lstamour »

ams6110 wrote: post #64
astrodust wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever see someone release file.c.bak, it's just sad.

To be fair, seeing .bak or .config or private key files, etc. accidentally pushed to github is not exactly uncommon.

.config sure, but .bak? That's what revision control software is for! :D

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#78

Post by [deleted] »

madaxe_again wrote: post #37
kazinator wrote: post #21

A source code repository lets me see what bugs you have fixed, and lets me do things like "git bisect" to discover the identity of the commit where you broke something six months ago that wasn't discovered because it's not covered by tests. Helping others find your bugs helps you. Anyone who is serious about any open source project today has a repository. Your bogus rationalizations sound like you haven't held a soft…

Think you're correct - this has been his gig for 20 years, before that apple and sun for ~5 years, before that, academia. Either that or he's using VSS and is mortally embarrassed.

[deleted]

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#79

Post by oddevan »

dvirsky wrote: post #67
hayd wrote: post #27

"As the software is open source, however, hobbyists are also free to use it, but to post to this mailing list, they are expected to demonstrate at least a minimal level of 'cluefulness' by using an email address with their own domain name - not just a generic "@gmail", "@yahoo", etc.-type email address." Makes sense.

Who still bothers to do that?

Every address I give out is one of my own domains. Mostly they redirect to my gmail account, but this way I can change to a different provider or suddenly spin up my own mail server and no one has to update their address book.

Edit to add: My point not withstanding, yeah, that's an arbitrary "cluefullness" test.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#80

Post by PopsiclePete »

kazinator wrote: post #21

A source code repository lets me see what bugs you have fixed, and lets me do things like "git bisect" to discover the identity of the commit where you broke something six months ago that wasn't discovered because it's not covered by tests. Helping others find your bugs helps you. Anyone who is serious about any open source project today has a repository. Your bogus rationalizations sound like you haven't held a soft…

Just look at the website itself... It's straight out of 1995, is it any wonder his views on source control are from 1990?
Post reply on HN