Or to the project creation page:
We hope you like it.
Thanks for all the hard work you guys have put into it. I think many people don't realise how much work goes into something when you deploy it on a Google scale.
We talked about how we should break the news that we supported git. Marking the bug fixed was a good approach to it as then we knew those that cared enough to click on the little star on the issue would know, and that would be a pretty good start.
A few people noticed in the 1/2 hour or so between the launch and the issue change, so that was funny to watch. We'll do a formal post later. Right now we're mostly watching and seeing what happens so we can make sure the site is in good shape.
So....try it out and let us know how you like it.
I have tons of more suggestions... of course they will need to be validated :-P
English? Google +. Italian? Google +.
Open source your projects using Google Project Hosting
Google Project Hosting is a fast, reliable, and easy open source hosting service. Google Project Hosting gives you:
+ Instant project creation on any topic
+ Subversion and Mercurial code hosting with 2
gigabytes of storage space
+ Download hosting support with 2 gigabytes of storage
+ Integrated source code browsing and code review tools
to make it easy to view code, review contributions,
and maintain a high quality code base
+ An issue tracker and project wiki that are simple,
yet flexible and powerful, and can adapt to any
+ Starring and update streams that make it easy to keep
track of projects and developers that you care about
It's totally bizzare to get other people's Google Code traffic data in your Google Analytics.
1. I get much more engagement from random developers on Github. On Github, random people will fork and add features, do code reviews and leave comments. All of these things are technically possible on Google Code but nobody does it—probably due to the usability but possibly also a cultural problem. Github has a strong culture of collaboration because they strongly emphasize it in the user's experience.
2. Managing forks and pull requests is easier on Github. I want my life as a maintainer to be as easy as possible.
3. Notifications: For a long time, Google Code notifications simply didn't work for me, at all. I'd randomly stumble on one of my older projects and noticed 5 new issues opened that I didn't know about, I felt like I betrayed my users for 6+ months. Now they seem like they do, but some trust has been lost.
4. Multiple choices of documentation markup on Github is appealing.
5. The code browsing feature on Google Code feels like its own application. When you open a Github project, first thing you see is the code. On Google Code it takes 2 more clicks (that's 1 more click than Bitbucket). Think about what's the most important thing here—the code, and Github got it right.
As far as version control goes, I'm happy with either Git or Mercurial.
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 source file listing, no documentation (not even a half-decent README), no screenshots and, worst of all, the need to build from source. I'm a technical person with a fair amount of curiosity for these things, and I find myself frequently bummed out and give up when I see a link to github.
Even when these "artifacts" exist, just the look of the site is enough to put regular users off.
Sharing code is not only about dumping a source tree online. It's about polishing all that surrounds it and makes it a "product". Without users a source tree has no value.
Frankly, the current situation is making the open-source community more and more closed in on itself. The first step for irrelevance.
Github's UI admittedly doesn't make for a great experience for someone browsing around looking for software to download. A project that is trying to appeal to regular users should set up a wiki page, or even better, use Github Pages to build a site.
Though, I really hate it when I follow a link to a Rails app on Github that left the default "Welcome to Rails" readme.
1. Is the library stable/complete?
2. Is the API stable?
3. If not, how frequently/how much does it change?
With a decent project page, I can have these questions answered either directly or by looking at the available downloads history (even if they are source-only downloads) and version numbers. With github projects I frequently can't answer any of those questions.
Libraries are products, just like any other piece of software.
I'm not saying that github isn't good for developer collaboration. I'm saying it's no good for developer-user relations. It has the necessary features, but it doesn't encourage its use by the very nature of its interface.
Number of followers/watchers is usually a good indication of how well-liked a project is. And as with any other open-source software, without sniffing in the code a little bit you never know what you're getting, regardless of how good the docs are or how sleek the project hosting pages are.
I like how most bigger projects are doing it nowadays: a separate page/mini-website, often using GitHub pages, that is user-centric and usually has a direct download link, and then GitHub for fellow developers.
You really don't go to GitHub and Bitbucket to download your favorite binary. That is what sourceforge, Top100 xyz, and Cnet is for.
The projects that are popular have people willing to help (read: contribute) to the project in classic open source engagement.
On top of that, GitHub & BitBucket enable the single/small group maintainer to write a readme that gets displayed.
I use both.
If your fav project doesn't have Mom+Pop friendly page with <download here> by all means please fork + contribute.
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).
Please, an 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/
It also seems fairly common to put the 'consumer' url near the top or bottom of the README.
(That said, I agree pull requests would be cool.)
When a user thus opts for this functionality what then is the differential factor in comparing it to GitHub?
both can host project homepages in a variety of ways. GC gives you a navigable and clean and usable project landing page by default, while github makes you work a bit harder. neither service prevents you from doing what you want, but if you care about your non-developer users, you'll find better conversions using google code. fact.
to the OPs point, there is no reason why you can't make your GC project page have more content for developers. it is a wiki. everybody loves wikis.
the OP of this thread is clearly trolling, though.
-Issues? Github has that.
I don't see anything feature wise that Google brings to the table that GitHub or Bitbucket doesn't out of the box or manually with even greater control.
I really want to understand what the issues are, help me understand.
i've run svn gc projects, and projects on github, and found the gc stack to be generally more robust, cohesive, flexible, and methodically designed. ex: compare the rich functionality of the gc issue tracker to github and you'll find them incomparable. or, create a project and browse the "advanced" tab of your project and you'll probably find you have more control than it feels like, with little effort.
regarding "can actually host content" - prolly a red herring because both let you host content. they just present a different ui for it.
Are there any non-google sites that do this on google code? As far as I can tell, all of them look like this:
Which is fine, but I'd hardly say that a new user would find that less daunting than the Homebrew page. There's a lot going on, and it's trying to cater to both people who want to use waf and people who want to work on waf.
the contents of your repositories are hosted available at projectname.googlecode.com, and you can serve HTML just like you can code. example: http://json-template.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/On-Design-...
the urls are not as nice but github's aren't great either.
I still find Github's detached gh-pages branches to be really clever and convenient.
Personally my projects are still on Google code, but Github is becoming more and more tempting.
Plus, you really get this feeling of activity while browsing projects and code on GitHub. Google Code and SourceForge seem so abandoned in comparison.
This is what I do. I like the way Google Code is oriented around giving you more of a "project" view, so I have a Google Code page for my projects, but I replaced the "Source" link with the link to the corresponding Github repo. I treat the Github repo as the primary repo for development, but I do use git-svn to push the code to Google Code SVN as well.. I figure it makes a convenient "read only" mirror for anybody who just wants to check the code out, play with it, whatever, but who isn't really interested in contributing... or for people who don't know how to use Git yet.
I disagree. I think it's a nice, simple, tidy interface in contrast to github's flashy one.
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!
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 is built for developers and users.
Only after looking at these elements can you get a picture of the project which will tell you a lot about it. How is the support? Do developers even care? Are they serious at issues handling? Etc.
OSS suffers a lot from people who think they can just paste the code, change the implementation when they feel like it, etc.
This can't be stressed enough. A prospective user first-and-foremost wants to have an answer to the question "Is this piece of software worthy of my time?". If it fails to answer this question quickly, it will lose the user.
We are used to seeing this kind of ignorance from corporations: "Let's dump this piece of code online. A community will form and users will come by the millions." How many times has this worked?
Right now there are loads of interesting projects on github. Projects that will never be sucessful because they failed to do the extra effort required to "market" them.
The front page of a Google Project gives you no indication if the project is being maintained.
When I go to a project on Github this is my flow:
1) When was the last check in? 18 months ago? Pass. Recent? Yes, please.
2) Usage examples? No? Maybe if I really need you. Yes? I'll at least give you shot.
3) Copy git url to the clipboard and then clone it.
Google Code doesn't do a good job of any of these!
2) It's up to the project to show usage examples. Given that Google Code projects have a wiki page as the first thing you see, the examples can be in an even more prominent place than on GitHub.
3) Yeah, there's an extra click and some manual text selection here.
I don't know. I think it strikes a decent balance between letting developers get to the information they want and not scaring off non-technical users.
GitHub allows messaging, why not ping the author? Or create an issue "Needs Documentation? Or even contributing to docs?
While Google Code has some work to do on DVCS features, I still find it far more generally usable and thoughtfully designed than GitHub.