Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrOllie (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 8 November 2024 (→sourcehut and repo.or.cz are missing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re-adding CodePlex entry based requirements update

CodePlex updated their project requirements page to say project requirement is compliance with the open source definition. Re-adding entry. -- jwanagel 10:54, 22 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Codeberg.org is missing

See here [1]https://codeberg.org/ 84.140.194.210 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a journal article that proves Codeberg is not in the Wikipedia.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamplevia (talk • contribs)
This is a list of facilities that have a prexisting Wikipedia article. See WP:WTAF. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has CodeHaus, Fedora Hosted and Tigris in it, but that isn't what interests me. I got what I want, see my Talk page edits. Admittedly, it's imperfect because the quote uses the word "currently". I did the commit message more to my liking. ---- Jamplevia (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read the journal article or did you just look at what I quoted? LOL ---- Jamplevia (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Codeberg article is on Wikipedia. Other Cody (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roukema, Boudewijn F. (14 July 2020). "[¬Rp] Reproducibility of 'Poincaré dodecahedral space parameter estimates'". ReScience C. 6.1 (11): 1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3956058. I chose a community-based server, Codeberg, not currently listed on the Wikipedia list of source code hosting facilities

Framasoft

Isn't the Framasoft forge missing? -- Error (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sourcehut and repo.or.cz are missing

sourcehut and repo.or.cz are missing. Xan2 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these have articles of their own. Greenman (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that they don't have yet their own page should not be a reason to discard it here. Sourcehut would have more features that many of the others according to the table. Also several of them have ceased its activity. I don't see why it is considered reasonable to keep a source-code-hosting facility that is not working since already 3 years, but don't include other that is active and have most of the features nowadays required by these source-code-hosting. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Has an article of its own' is the list inclusion criteria for this comparison, and we ought to keep following it. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog or a link directory, so anything that was notable enough to have an article can remain listed for historical purposes, even if the facility is no longer active.
Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a catalog, we write about and list things of historical importance, even if they are not currently active. We still have an article on Isaac Newton even though he hasn't written any new scientific papers for while.
Since you have commented about this in 3 separate places, I will not respond here any more. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_source-code-hosting_facilities&oldid=1256186548"