A github first

Like many github users, I often create forks for projects whenever I want to pull down their code, rather than cloning from the source directly.  This is pretty much the default way of working on github, as the site encourages collaboration through individualized repositories.  On my github page, this is what you’d see for my repositories:


It’s front and center, right on my home page.  Only two of those repositories were ones that I created completely fresh, and the rest are forks.

The other day, I posted a question on the StructureMap mailing list, but wound up getting a response in a github pull request!


This is because it’s just as easy to fork a user’s repository as it is the central repository.  Even the concept of a “central repository” isn’t ingrained in git (or github), there are only “blessed” repositories that the OSS project’s organizers agree upon.  For example, the “blessed” AutoMapper repository is just the AutoMapper repository in my github.

Pretty sweet, I can pull in this request locally, as well as any upstream StructureMap changes (as Git allows me to have as many remotes as I want), and see if it works for me.  If it does, I can then issue a pull request to the blessed StructureMap repository.  But if it doesn’t go through, no worries, I have my own StructureMap repository :)

Comparison to CodePlex

CodePlex is fantastic for a public-facing project hub, but it’s still not close to github on the OSS collaboration side.  Here’s an example, my homepage for the AutoMapper repository looks like this:


I have a wealth of information at my disposal here.  For new users, it’s a one-click operation to watch the project, fork it, create a pull request.  I can see how many folks follow the project or forked it.  All the information here is about the repository itself, rather than a project.  Github has a separate page for that, but by default, it’s about collaboration rather than documentation.

On CodePlex, I get a list of checkins:


The list of forks isn’t that much better.  CodePlex is definitely making strides, but you can definitely tell the difference between an OSS project hosting site built around DVCS versus one around centralized version control.  In github, its design is built around distributed collaboration, centered around individual commiters.  In CodePlex, its design is built around centralized projects.

Both definitely have their benefits, as it’s super-easy to get a URL to the CodePlex AutoMapper project page:  http://automapper.codeplex.com.  In fact, I kept the project on CodePlex because its support for project-centric activities I felt was better.  However, its support for collaboration-centric workflows still is pretty far away from github.  Unfortunately, CodePlex has to support both centralized (TFS) and distributed (Hg) source control systems, so I’m not sure how it’ll all shake out in the end…

Related Articles:

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

About Jimmy Bogard

I'm a technical architect with Headspring in Austin, TX. I focus on DDD, distributed systems, and any other acronym-centric design/architecture/methodology. I created AutoMapper and am a co-author of the ASP.NET MVC in Action books.
This entry was posted in git. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
  • http://www.squaredroot.com Troy Goode

    During MvcConf I complained about CodePlex’s handling of forks in IRC chat. Matt Hawley (one of the devs/PMs – not sure which – of CodePlex) asked me for more details, so I ended up sending him a rather long email with a detailed comparison of common activities like forking, sending pull requests, etc. At the end of that email I summarized my thoughts with the following:

    “My takeaways:

    1) Even if CodePlex’s performance was great (which it still isn’t – for parts of it), it would still take more time to do stuff on CodePlex.

    2) GitHub places clear focus on the existence of forks and making it easy for you to create your own. Every single page related to a project gives you instant access to the number of forks, a link to view those forks (in a graphical format), and a button to instantly create your own fork. CodePlex hides everything related to code inside of a “Source Code” tab.

    3) CodePlex seems optimized for single developer or small team projects, not for community involvement. Unfortunately GitHub has shown that optimizing for community involvement can also improve the experience for single developers and small teams.

    4) GitHub makes it easy to “watch” projects, turning your homepage into a valuable feed of information related to people and projects you’ve expressed interest in.

    5) CodePlex’s ability to star/favorite projects does next to nothing – simply placing that project into a list hidden on your profile page.

    6) GitHub allows me to express interest in people in addition to projects and incorporate all of their work into my main feed. CodePlex doesn’t even have a Web 1.0 era friendslist.”

    It is great that CodePlex went and added HG support, but it seems obvious to me that it was treated as just another feature to be tacked on – they don’t even offer an easy way to convert older projects to HG (you have to email an admin). I’m not exactly sure what CodePlex is striving to be “best of breed” at, if anything.