[Sugar-devel] Issue tracking on Github?

[Dave Crossland]

On 6 June 2016 at 16:16, Devin <devin at ulibarri.website> wrote:
> (This is long, gnarly thread, but I just like to think about this sort of
> stuff, what can I say...)

:D

To say Github is a failed state seems rather absurd to me, compared to
the other 2 large code hosting sites, SourceForce and Google Code
Hosting ;)

I think its a great metaphor, but I'm not convinced about the data
collection used for the graph.

First, I think there must be a large fraction of all github repos that
have less than 10 commits with almost nothing in them and are
essentially worthless. If those don't have a LICENSE file, I don't
mind :)

Second, I think often the license is indicated in a way that the
search for licenses hasn't accounted for because it might be ambiguous
to a machine but unambiguous to a human.

For example, there are 25 repos listed on https://github.com/trending
and of those 12 did not have a file named "LICENSE*" but 9 of those 12
stated a license in the README (usually at the very end)

Of those 3 without a license file or statement in README, 2 were repos
with a single README used to collaboratively collect links on a topic:

https://github.com/vic317yeh/One-Click-to-Be-Pro

https://github.com/terryum/awesome-deep-learning-papers

Only 1 was a software package: https://github.com/WuXiaolong/AndroidUtils

However, it is only 1,300 lines (mostly XML configuration, from what I
can tell) and is 17 days old; my issue to ask about the license is the
first one filed: https://github.com/WuXiaolong/AndroidUtils/issues/1

In using Github over the last 6 years, I can't say that I have come
across many repos that didn't have licenses clearly indicated; I have
come across a handful, and filed an issue asking for a license and it
was quickly added as a forgetful oversight.