User forums > Announcements
When is the next version coming out?
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Croydon on August 14, 2015, 09:40:14 pm ---Also the project team should provide more regular new information, the project seems dead for everyone who isn't digging really deep into it.
--- End quote ---
Well on SourceForge, with every nightly you have a new news entry. And according to the statistics (downloads / accesses) the projects seems well represented and acknowledged.
However, surely we could do better. :-)
Croydon:
--- Quote from: oBFusCATed on August 14, 2015, 09:45:57 pm ---I'm not sure how the site works, but if you're interested in helping improve the look we could probably think how you can do it.
Also if you follow the night build subforum or the code history page on sf.net you'll know that there is activity in this project.
Also we have some clones of the main repo on github, so you can follow them. Mine is manually updated every 2-3 days.
--- End quote ---
I'm not really a good designer, but I could change outdated stuff and other minor things. However, e.g. the GitHub workflow makes contributing so much easier. People don't want to invest 2 hours just to get started if they don't want to become long run contributors. It's less about me, but more about attracting more contributors in general by reducing the formal steps. You can't simple fork, commit and create a pull request and discuss the changes on SourceForge.
An inoffical mirror is one thing. An offical mirror where I can send requests is another thing :)
--- Quote from: eckard_klotz on August 26, 2015, 03:03:27 pm ---Hello Croydon.
--- Quote ---Code::Blocks should really move away from Sourceforge after all what did happen and is happening there.
--- End quote ---
What are you meaning???
--- End quote ---
SourceForge is modifying offical installers from popular projects. They're adding adware to it against the will of the project owners. See for e.g.:
Gimp: http://www.gimp.org/news/2015/05/27/sourceforge-what-the/ & http://www.gimp.org/news/2015/05/27/gimp-projects-official-statement-on-sourceforges-actions/
VLC media player: https://blog.l0cal.com/2015/06/02/what-happened-to-sourceforge/
Notepad++: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/notepad-plus-plus-leaves-sf.html
You can't trust a platform anymore which does stuff like that.
--- Quote from: eckard_klotz on August 26, 2015, 03:03:27 pm ---
--- Quote ---I would recommend to move to GitHub and also open source the website, so people can also help with that. The current one is outdated and looks aged.
--- End quote ---
Changing the provider would not help to update the website if the developer decide that it is more important to spent the effort in the product itself (what I definitely prefer). As far as I understand it you can add some pages in the wiki or at least you can provide you information in the forum.
--- End quote ---
Again, switching to GitHub reduces the barrier for contributing. The developers of CB don't need to concentrate that much on the website. But when people create pull requests with reasonable changes I'm pretty sure they getting welcomed by the team :)
--- Quote from: eckard_klotz on August 26, 2015, 03:03:27 pm ---
--- Quote ---... the project seems dead for everyone who isn't digging really deep into it.
--- End quote ---
If clicking on the forum-button is digging deep I ask my self what amount of information you expect on the main-page and what kind of confusion this causes for a new-bee.
--- End quote ---
Easy, the website has a news section. So I'm expecting that it's getting regular updates. Also the RSS feed depends on these news and the landing page gives always a "more offical" impression than a forum to the visitors.
Also it contains a lot of dead links and the offical last stable release is two years ago. So yes, just talking about the landing page, one can't really see any progress on the project.
--- Quote from: eckard_klotz on August 26, 2015, 03:03:27 pm ---The project had already to move since the provider used before has closed his service. And I would recommend definitely not spent some effort to change again especially if I think about what this means for older users which already know where to find what and who are using SVN.
--- End quote ---
Well, users (not CB developers, not people who self-compile) don't care where the source code is.
People, who just grap the source code because they compile it on their own, doesn't really care either. Moreover, you can still perform a svn checkout on a GitHub repository, so this group of people doesn't need to change anything, except the URL.
It would be a change for CB developers, yeah. But honestly changes are normal and not avoidable. Of course, don't do everything which would be theoretically possible, but effort < benefit is given in this case more than once.
And when I should give a prognosis then I would say that SourceForge is getting closed down in a few years. Many, many projects are migrating away from SourceForge and SF offers nothing which isn't replaceable or even better somewhere else.
The same did happen with Google Code, but at least Google Code didn't modify projects or displayed "download now!" advertising which leads to malware.
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on August 26, 2015, 05:19:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: Croydon on August 14, 2015, 09:40:14 pm ---Also the project team should provide more regular new information, the project seems dead for everyone who isn't digging really deep into it.
--- End quote ---
Well on SourceForge, with every nightly you have a new news entry. And according to the statistics (downloads / accesses) the projects seems well represented and acknowledged.
However, surely we could do better. :-)
--- End quote ---
Right, but from time to time there should be a summary, a posting about where the jouney is going, the "big picture" only the team can see. :)
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Croydon on August 27, 2015, 06:04:37 pm ---However, e.g. the GitHub workflow makes contributing so much easier.
--- End quote ---
I hear that so many times... However with SVN its the same:
1.) Checkout
2.) Change
3.) Run the command "svn diff > my.patch" in your working copy
4.) Post "my.patch" to the patch tracker.
The only "issue" is, that if you create new files you'll need to add a "svn add mynew.file" command before 3.).
I don't understand why this is too hard or harder than GIT. I still believe whoever wants to contribute can take these steps, too. Nevertheless we have GIT mirrors, so what is this all about, actually?
And btw: In 95% of the cases we have to modify the patch because the C::B style is not followed or the change is buggy. So not simply "pulling" is also an important quality assurance!
Easior Lars:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on August 28, 2015, 07:11:49 am ---I don't understand why this is too hard or harder than GIT.
--- End quote ---
I don't agree with you. If I clone a repository by GIT, then I can change some files and commit them. Next time I can continuous to pull and merge modifications to local branch. 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.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Easior Lars on August 28, 2015, 07:34:01 am ---I'm afraid that I can't commit and merge any modification in local repository when I use subversion.
--- End quote ---
If that is the major advantage you would like to achieve then why don't you simply make a GIT clone of the SVN repo using git-svn?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version