From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael J Gruber Subject: Re: The GitTogether Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:38:22 +0200 Message-ID: <5023E77E.4020604@drmicha.warpmail.net> References: <87k3xpe8bz.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <50155CD9.6060702@web.de> <5016894C.7020907@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jens Lehmann , Thomas Rast , Scott Chacon , git list , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , Shawn Pearce To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 09 18:38:38 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SzVkl-0002hs-HM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:38:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758672Ab2HIQi0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:38:26 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:59626 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755949Ab2HIQiZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:38:25 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id B312020A9D; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:38:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:38:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=svUHW4rGOjUuh59OcR+i+P h5Xco=; b=Hz2tjhlaZsYmM+lmg5qoOIaK1ZtZWh24kd7tPuE0s+l+bt9rIlne/X AeeuMAO2hZzkwO52B2MJbSlG/uBSqAIUiGBaMvgcewdt4pM5vTBDZvcF8HRuM1RU 2VlMXVuXGY5oqmM1Mj5bYthUMU+QmTSm+ppsiLmUJnSyqg2b1s33A= X-Sasl-enc: 2AR2B26GNn3kXVxKwAQ9TB+6oTSzAUdgyKRqIBo2JQbc 1344530304 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [130.75.46.56]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9970E8E020C; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:38:23 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <5016894C.7020907@drmicha.warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 30.07.2012 15:17: > Jens Lehmann venit, vidit, dixit 29.07.2012 17:55: >> Am 27.07.2012 13:45, schrieb Thomas Rast: >>> Scott Chacon writes: >>> >>>> GitHub would like to volunteer to organize and pay for these events >>>> this year. I would like to hold the developer-centric one in Berlin >>>> in early October > > Winter term classes start 10/15. Before 10/15 it will be easier to book > university rooms if we need that. > >>> >>> Yay, Berlin! I would be glad to join there; I would probably not have >>> the time and resources to travel to SF this year. >> >> Same here. > > Same. > > Do we have contacts regarding (un)conference rooms in Berlin already? I > might be able to ask around. > >> >>>> For those of you who *have* been to a GitTogether, what did you find >>>> useful and/or useless about it? What did you get out of it and would >>>> like to see again? For those of you who have never been, what do you >>>> think would be useful? I was thinking for both of them to have a >>>> combination of short prepared talks, lightning/unconference style >>>> talks and general discussion / breakout sessions. >>> >>> I was at the 2010 GitTogether in Mountain View. I really liked the >>> unconference format, and the way Shawn and Junio used it: just using the >>> topic stickers as a sort of todo-list, not actually fixing any schedule >>> in advance. Oddly enough we also managed to avoid the usual consequence >>> of open-ended discussions: getting stuck endlessly on an absolutely >>> insignificant point. >> >> Yup, the unconference format with both common and breakout sessions >> worked really well. >> >>> I think the discussions were very productive. I would love to do more >>> hacking than we managed in 2010, but I realize that this is not possible >>> if we just meet for 2-3 days. Perhaps one option would be to plan for >>> 1-2 days of hacking after the discussion rounds, so that the interested >>> people can stay a bit longer? >> >> I really like that idea and would vote for 3-4 days (maybe including a >> weekend for those of us who have to take a leave from work ;-). While the unconference format is successful, may I suggest a track/topic: Especially if there's GitHub support and participation this would be a good opportunity to discuss some GitHub specific issues in person rather than via the list or support tickets. Two come to my mind: 1) GitHub for Git developers: I certainly don't suggest a change in workflow for git.git, but you often hear Git developers say "we can't do this or that on GitHub", and I think GitHub (and other projects using GitHub) could benefit from the specific point of view and input of Git developers to improve workflow support on GitHub. 2) git-scm.com: The old Git website and wiki certainly did not quite meet GitHub's demands (e.g. reliability, looks), and git-scm.com certainly does not quite meet the/all Git developers demands (e.g. list discussion based decisions and actions, separation between the "free project" and "business related content). In person it may be easier to find a way forward which benefits all parts of the large and undefined "Git community". Cheers, Michael