mastodon.xyz is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Mastodon instance, open to everyone, but mainly English and French speaking.

Administered by:

Server stats:

736
active users

#sourceforge

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Replied in thread

@nixCraft I remember #SourceForge. One day, it randomly started to force ad-infested "installers" into every software download which probably marked the beginning of its downfall.

And yes, independent FOSS infrastructure is important.

I think #Codeberg/#Forgejo is doing a great job in providing a non-commercial, free-software, no-bullshit software forge. Free software development needs free software tools. It BAFFLES me how this isn’t consensus in the #FOSS community.

Replied in thread

On the subject of the ongoing enshittification of GritHub, we've been here before. From a post on my #Disintermedia blog in its early days;

"SF.net has since reimplemented its stack in Python, beginning in 2009 as a new free code project called Allura under the Apache 2.0 license, and in June 2011, a piece was posted on the SourceForge blog which finished off, 'pull up a chair, because we’re here to stay'."

web.archive.org/web/2017040906

(1/2)

web.archive.orgDisintermedia » Gitorious becomes Gitlab

Does #gnuplot project <gnuplot.info/> not believe in providing SHA(512|256) checksums of download files? Or, PGP/GPG signature of the file (along with public key)?

The downloading behaviour on #SourceForge <sourceforge.net/projects/gnupl> <sourceforge.net/projects/gnupl> in itself creeps me out for having a fucking redirection. Why.

And I just realized that the project website itself uses "HTTP" without the "S". Yeah😐

I would not have to look into installing v5.4.10 on someone's request if it was available as a package for #RockLinux 8 that work has in use.

It has not moved to v9+ due to lack of support for NIS; moving to LDAP is planned in 1+ years.

www.gnuplot.infognuplot homepage

@deflarerOfClouds #GitHub has hosted #PerlTidy development for a long time. Please continue to file bug reports there: GitHub.com/perltidy/perltidy/i

You might even consider making a reasonable case to move the project’s remaining assets off #SourceForge. Impotently whinging about it here doesn’t change anything.

/ @ChristosArgyrop @ovid @perl #Perl

GitHubIssues · perltidy/perltidyPerl::Tidy, a source code formatter for Perl. Contribute to perltidy/perltidy development by creating an account on GitHub.
Replied to Mark Gardner

@mjgardner @Perl @ChristosArgyrop @ovid Certainly it’s an embarrassment considering #Sourceforge has recently joined the exclusive walled-garden of #Cloudflare. I cannot reach any sourceforge.net/* pages. But I can reach perltidy.sourceforge.net because it’s CF with Tor whitelisted. However, I’ll still avoid it on principle. I don’t think I’ve filed bug reports there but certainly I will not in the future.

[2208.04259] First Come First Served: The Impact of File Position on #CodeReview
arxiv.org/abs/2208.04259

arXiv.orgFirst Come First Served: The Impact of File Position on Code ReviewThe most popular code review tools (e.g., Gerrit and GitHub) present the files to review sorted in alphabetical order. Could this choice or, more generally, the relative position in which a file is presented bias the outcome of code reviews? We investigate this hypothesis by triangulating complementary evidence in a two-step study. First, we observe developers' code review activity. We analyze the review comments pertaining to 219,476 Pull Requests (PRs) from 138 popular Java projects on GitHub. We found files shown earlier in a PR to receive more comments than files shown later, also when controlling for possible confounding factors: e.g., the presence of discussion threads or the lines added in a file. Second, we measure the impact of file position on defect finding in code review. Recruiting 106 participants, we conduct an online controlled experiment in which we measure participants' performance in detecting two unrelated defects seeded into two different files. Participants are assigned to one of two treatments in which the position of the defective files is switched. For one type of defect, participants are not affected by its file's position; for the other, they have 64% lower odds to identify it when its file is last as opposed to first. Overall, our findings provide evidence that the relative position in which files are presented has an impact on code reviews' outcome; we discuss these results and implications for tool design and code review. Data and materials: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6901285