There's a few things that I'd like to comment on here:
You are doing everything wrong. Code::Blocks sucks. I'm not going to tell you what is wrong, you have to know. I'll tell you after the release. (paraphrased)
Right. That's not going to get you a release any faster, nor a product that's more according to your wishes. If you have something that doesn't work, it's time to tell before
a release comes out, not after. Unless of course you only complain because you like complaining.
SourceForge is modifying offical installers from popular projects. They're adding adware to it against the will of the project owners
That is an outright lie. You should be really careful about what you are saying because it can have much more drastic consequences for your person than you are probably aware of.
Sourceforge did (and does) add adware to installers, but only after the project owners (who get revenue for doing so) have opted in.
Our project has been popular for a long time. It is currently ranked #16 in development and has been in the top 10 for several years (was ranked #2 after last release, it also has been featured as project of the week and whatever it's called, too). At no point in time
did Sourceforge secretly or against our will (or at all!) add adware to any of our executables/installers. No adware is currently contained in our installers, and we are not making any money from such a channel (Yiannis does
receive one or the other donation on occasions, but on the yearly average, it's less than what renting the server for the website and the forum costs).
Sourceforge indeed does
display a considerable amount of ads on their website. Guess what, a lot of websites do that, it's what they live from.
"Github is so much better than Sourceforge. Git rules and SVN is for losers." (paraphrased)
Yeah, OK. You can choose whichever revision control system and provider you want, the difference is not big. Unlike common folklore, Git has no
significant advantages over SVN, unless you work on something the size of the Linux kernel and want a similar workflow like on the Linux kernel (including sending tar files via email, which according to Torvalds is vastly superior to using Subversion). For a project the size of Code::Blocks and a team the size of our team, Subversion works very well.
Please feel free to use what you like, but stop trying to press us into using something different simply because you like it better for some ideologic reason.
In particular, this:
switching to GitHub reduces the barrier for contributing
is not true. Checking out takes typing 6 characters plus the repository's name, or two clicks with the mouse (depending on what you use). Making a patch, which is factually the equivalent to "committing a branch" takes the same amount of work. Yes, your patch will not be merged to master
, or whatever you call it). But that won't happen without someone reviewing it anyway, not with Git either.
However, I'm afraid that I can't commit and merge any modification in local repository when I use subversion as a non-privilige user.
That is true, but it is also something that is explicitly not wanted. It's why there is an authorative server with access control lists in the first place. While having two thousand people clone repositories and commit 25 branches per day as they like sounds like an awesome idea, it is not nearly as awesome unless you have a team of two dozen people dedicated to reviewing these. We don't have that.
The need of producing a clean, working
patch which only ever gets committed after applying cleanly without conflicts and being reviewed and tested is something that works well for us (even so, it is often more than what we can cope with time-wise).