#musicbrainz-devel

jesus2099: I don't really have anything MB specific.

I have my HTTPS script, but that does HTTPS redirecting for far more sites than just the mb.o ones.

ah oh yes

Freso: if the name of the repo is Freso/blub than you have admin rights and are the main user. In an organisation you have more equal way to give rights etc

what do you think nikki ?

Anyway. Off!

oh then organisatio nsounds good but maybe it’s a feature that is not free !

also with one main user that is the user to invite new people to the repo. With an org you can have changing admins

jesus2099: it is free

well, there are some limits, but I don't think serious one. Should look that up though

is that an existing organitsation that could contain a userscripts repository ? https://github.com/metabrainz

https://github.com/organizations/new when we have no private repos it is free

jesus2099: that is an existing org, but I think we want to have a bit more "loose" user management

that is the official MB Devs Org I think

nikki, i am worried that we loose the easy uso/tag/musicbrainz entry point for all script… the collapse of uso, will end in random userscripts put here and there and no way to accurately and quickly have an auto-updated list

I think luks has admin rights for that org. Maybe he can give his 2 ct. about creating a new org or not

as you are a very important userjs writer, what do you think ?

nikki: ↗

well, to me that are two different things:

reosarevok: we did that before but it is never up to date

and never will be

1. having a wiki where to link to userscripts on GH, BB, GC, etc.

it’s somewhere in mbs’ wiki i guess… with old versions and obsolete stuff

i’ll read the logs when i come back from lunch, sorry ! :)

2. providing a "default" place to add userscripts on GitHub (especially for people not knowing where to go)

is there another wiki page jesus2099 refers to? https://musicbrainz.org/doc/External_Resources only talks about that userscripts.org tag

anyways: I am all for creating (and updating) a wiki page with links to userscripts *and* for creating an org on GH for userscripts (and a repo, possibly more if people just want to "move" a repo to the org)

that being said: I am no mb userscripts dev. I created userscripts, but none for MB

https://github.com/Freso/jesus2099-mb_hidden_links is an excellant example of something that can go into an org (rather than having multiple users "hosting" scripts)

https://github.com/murdos/musicbrainz-userscripts other important scripts that I know of are on GH

(note that even with an org, every users still needs a GH account)

wiki pages that are trying to be updated list of user scripts have always rot in my experience… there was my own user page that i quickly abandonned and that external links page you found JonnyJD, cf. this edit when i put the tag link insterad of the outdated list https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Ex...

nikki: where do you intend to move your scripts to, for instance ?

I would imagine bitbucket, since that's what we use for MB anyway

*MBS

CB is GH.

MeB is GH.

Geordi is GH. CAA is GH. Picard is GH. Etc.

musicbrainz-server is the only MB thing that "lives" on BB.

(Unless you count AcoustID things as MB things, in which case, AcoustID things also live on BB.)

Fine, that's what we use for the only part of MB nikki contributes code to on a general basis :p

in? whatever :)

but doesnt everyone like BB more than GH

For big-project reviewing, yes, we mostly do

Dunno if everyone

I like them both for different things.

For small things that will be reviewed by one person anyway, github's probably fine

Like reo says, BB is better for "big-project reviewing", but GH feels more "community-ish".

I'm a bit curious if Picard wouldn't benefit from a move to BB, but everyone else there seems fine in github

*everything

Id rather use one system (preferably BB) for everthing

We do use one system for everything.

Git.

:D

heh

oh dear

(Well, except that apparently there are still a remnant or two still in Subversion for whatever reason...)

Technically true, I guess

Wel yeah, I stiul think git is far too complicated for its own good

I'd somewhat prefer to use BB for all, but it's not a big issue

though I can see the advanatge of distributed source control

(although of course I mostly work on MBS only anyway, so...)

Dunno - I haven't found the problems with git really

Pull new code, work, commit

It is all powerful and stuff but I don't think I've ever needed more than 4 or 5 commands

I think BB feels a bit too "commercial" for me. I'd imagine ijabz1 would like that, but I prefer the more "community"/OpenSource feel of GH.

heh

But that's all "touchy-feely" and not very logos based argumentation.

Its all this new branch for each piece of work business

So I will accept that that's not valid. :)

It's kinda fun after seeing the ostentatious GH offices to read that :p

I prefer BB because its works better

Oh. Dunno, I like branches, most of the time - one branch per ticket works pretty fine for me

reosarevok: Indeed. :) Never the less, we have VxJasonVx hanging around in #musicbrainz who's a GH employee and when I hung out in #bitbucket, there was just one BB employee there AFAICT, who was only spuriously on.

Spuriously? Sparsely? Dunno.

haha

Seldomly I think is what I was looking for.

Well spuriously would be that he was only fakely there :D

And active rather than on.

reosarevok: Exactly. :)

s/spuriously on/seldomly active/

"Its all this new branch for each piece of work business" - I. Love. This. So. Much.

Seriously. That's one of the things I love most about Git over CVS etc.

It's so easy to keep separate work, y'know, separate.

And to be able to follow the history of the work instead of just seeing a final, odourless patch.

Im often working on a couple of issues at once, and I like to be working in one code environment not switching between two

I still check i files seperatly for each issue they are solving

ijabz1: "git add -i" is your friend.

Eh.

git add -p

aka git add --patch

Yeah.

<3

Freso: bb employees are probably forced to use hipchat instead of irc ;)

I tend to fix a lot of syntax/code style "errors" when I do other work, `git add -p` allows me to filter those out when making the commit.

what are you upto these days warp ?

Making South America more Dutch.

flattening all the hills ?

Damming up the coast line to increase the "above water" land mass. :D

if the land mass is above sea level it doesn't need much damming

Hence the apostrophes.

(it is very weird to me to see a coast line without dykes. crazy people!)

ijabz1: I'm doing PHP for a startup, they make a CRM thing aimed at the real estate market.

(github) can repositories (like murdos/thiscoolscript and nikki/thsoecooldates) be visible in a musicbrainz-userscripts organisation ?

I don't think so.

ok… mmh anyway i don’t want to be the only one looking for an uso/tags/musicbrainz replacement… but i strongly feel the necessity.

so what has happened to userscripts ?

i don’t want to decide on something i like but that no one will use

it’s now down for many days…

it’s readable on port 8080 but only readonly

i don’t know if it’s the ultimate days of that site but it looks more creepy than the other shut downs… it’s longer for instance…

ijabz1: https://userscripts.org/tags/musicbrainz (down) // http://userscripts.org:8080/tags/musicbrainz (read only)

but why ?

No idea

why ? no communication, no idea

AFAIK it just went down

probably overloaded by all those scripts that implement autoupdate in funky ways

maybe…

or its server can’t stand its overpopularity

ask https://twitter.com/anotherjesse

i don’t have twitter but i’ve already went there and only saw a scary machine gun

nothing about userscripts except the profile

at a glance my guess is he got busy with a new job and doesn't have time for userscripts.org, but that's just guessing

jesus2099_: the organisation can fork repos that don't have the org as the root

jesus2099_: so they can show up on the org anyways

port 8080 of userscripts.org is also down (currently)

you can integrate them as git submodules too

yes, but that is not what we want really

for me the only upside of BB is the abbility to have multiple people "approve" PRs but MBS is the only project I know that actually uses this feature

and git >> svn; I would recommend anybody starting out learning SCM to learn git. SVN is only for old-time users and a thing to make people upgrade to that still use CVS

I thought is was possible on github

xram_: yes, it is

but with an org the natural way would be to just "fork" them. This also displays the original as root then

(we only want other user scripts to show up somewhere in the "mb-userscripts" org. Not for it to be downloaded automatically with the rest. Well, unless you want to..)

you can cherry pick submodules too afaik