Placement question

[manny]

Manny, the repo at github look beautiful. Juleo must see it

Glad you like it

[Julio Jerez]

Ok let us do this this Saturday.
Mean while let me get familiar wit it.

Does Github allow for people to upload stables releases.
Google put the monkey range when the cut the ability to upload stable releases.,

Oh I just checked it some file, bu I think those can be merged by hand after I get the Github

[d.l.i.w]

Does Github allow for people to upload stables releases?

See here on how to create a release: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software


Some other remarks:
While I think it's a good idea to move the code to github (makes interaction a lot easier), I would neither recommend to redirect newtondynamics.com directly to github, nor I would move the wiki.
I don't think this helps anyone to discover Newton, but rather makes a lot of confusion as you loose the "central" place (this web page) and split the forum from the rest.
Additionally the wiki - at this moment - is very outdated. There is information about Newton 1.5, on how to move to 2.0 and a half complete API documentation, which doesn't reflect the current state.
So unless someone really puts a lot of effort into it to make it up to date, there is no point in moving outdated content to github.

IMO an update of this webpage and the (media)wiki (which btw. is much more powerful than github's) is far more urgent.

A nice improvement would be to merge the wiki logins with the forum ones - so no more two accounts are needed.

[manny]

While I think it's a good idea to move the code to github (makes interaction a lot easier), I would neither recommend to redirect newtondynamics.com directly to github, nor I would move the wiki.
I don't think this helps anyone to discover Newton, but rather makes a lot of confusion as you loose the "central" place (this web page) and split the forum from the rest.

Actually, it makes github the central place. This is what popular and thriving open source projects do. It's not only easier to maintain, it also makes people actually contribute to the wiki page as they've already got an account for github. This web page is outdated and looks old and besides that, it contains so much outdated and thus harmful information which instantly turns off many people.
The only thing that is worth keeping alive is this very forum, but even here, I would recommend throwing the header away and make it look more integrated into github.
Moving to github is great, it centralizes your entire management from issue tracking, to source versioning to wiki. And again, it makes people actually contribute: contribute with pull requests (code improvements) and wiki improvements.

Even more important, making github the central page makes this project look fresh and active again. People will instantly see the latest commits and see the awesome contributions.

Additionally the wiki - at this moment - is very outdated. There is information about Newton 1.5, on how to move to 2.0 and a half complete API documentation, which doesn't reflect the current state.
So unless someone really puts a lot of effort into it to make it up to date, there is no point in moving outdated content to github.

So, the only thing that might spark some interest in updating and maintaining the wiki is making it more accessible to potential editors, and that is github.
It's 2014, what do you expect? That people sign up for forums or wikis, everybody already has enough logins - so you really, really have to be into it to do just that.

IMO an update of this webpage and the (media)wiki (which btw. is much more powerful than github's) is far more urgent.

Well that's funny... but you do know that github's wiki engine "gollum" handles MediaWiki raw files just fine. just copy them into your wiki repo and add the suffix .wiki. Again, github's wiki engine emulates MediaWiki files, the current homepage is actually the sourcecode of the current wiki homepage just pasted into github. Well I stripped away the ugly HTML code.

I am not affiliated with github I honestly think a bold move to github is the best that can happen to this project.

[manny]

Ok let us do this this Saturday.
Mean while let me get familiar wit it.

Does Github allow for people to upload stables releases.
Google put the monkey range when the cut the ability to upload stable releases.,

Oh I just checked it some file, bu I think those can be merged by hand after I get the Github

Yes, releasing is incredibly simply. Simply tag the current state of the repo as a release and it will be packaged by github. You can even create a historic release by just tagging a previous commit.

I can also help you merge in those files, let me know.

[d.l.i.w]

We should start a new topic on this issue, this hijacked thread actually is the wrong place.

@manny
Note that I'm arguing against using github as project website - I fully support your effort to move the code there.

I agree with you, that github might make this project more visible, but the same effect can be achieved (IMO even more sustainable) with an updated main page. This still looks much more professional than a random readme and wiki on github.

As far as the wiki is concerned, I don't really understand what you want to tell me.
You are saying you would recommend to drop this webpage because it contains so much outdated and thus harmful information, but at the same time you want to push exactly this irritating information to github (that's what moving the wiki to github means to me).
People won't magically start to contribute, just because it's on github, especially if they are expected to fix broken stuff (e.g. API documentation).

The wiki mainly was written by people that used Newton for quite a time and somehow wanted to collect their experience and tried to write down, what Newton does. Somebody who starts to use a new library expects to *find* some documentation, he will *not* start writing it.
And those who could already are registered in the forum and wiki.

The current homepage is actually the sourcecode of the current wiki homepage just pasted into github.

Including templates, categories, namespaces, ... ?

It's 2014...
This web page [..] looks old
making github the central page makes this project look fresh and active again

I would say, it looks ok and is fully functional - why chasing trends? If you look around, the more professional a library is, the simpler the webpage ( you don't believe me? ).
Newton's quality is defined by it's source and functionality - not by a "modern, 100% designed" webpage. Just *looking* fresh and active doesn't help anyone.

Fortunately it's not me to decide this, I hope Julio does the right thing

[manny]

I agree with you, that github might make this project more visible, but the same effect can be achieved (IMO even more sustainable) with an updated main page.

Hardly. I believe that for an open source project, one of the most important aspects is how active the project is. Github shows exactly that, and people know where information is located on the github UI/UX.

As far as the wiki is concerned, I don't really understand.... People won't magically start to contribute, just because it's on github, especially if they are expected to fix broken stuff (e.g. API documentation).

Well, take a look at the recent changes in the wiki: http://newtondynamics.com/wiki/index.ph ... &days=3000
The last real change was 20. august 2012, that is nearly two years ago. Why do you expect this to change all of a sudden. Give change a chance.
One of the reasons that nobody edits in the wiki is because as I said previously:

So, the only thing that might spark some interest in updating and maintaining the wiki is making it more accessible to potential editors, and that is github.
It's 2014, what do you expect? That people sign up for forums or wikis, everybody already has enough logins - so you really, really have to be into it to do just that.

Again, one login for everything newton is a good thing. Especially if millions of developers already have such an account.

You are saying you would recommend to drop this webpage because it contains so much outdated and thus harmful information, but at the same time you want to push exactly this irritating information to github (that's what moving the wiki to github means to me).

Well, my exact wording was that "this web page is outdated" - not the wiki. Just click on the downloads link on this page, the most important page, after looking at that I hardly see a chance for a dev to even click on SVN to see if there is any activity at all.

About the actual wiki migration, the main point is moving to Github. I would indeed migrate all wiki pages, but I would also vote against keeping any none Core 300+ info. Plus, API documentation shouldn't happen in the wiki. It would probably boil down to very little actual information being live on the reboot.

Including templates, categories, namespaces, ... ?

IMHO a developer wiki should not be over-engineered. It needs precise information on how to get started, a FAQ, contribution information, maybe some demo links, and that's about it. So these features are not necessary and over complicate things.
But to answer your question, I am not sure whether github's gollum supports those feature or not. I haven't seen developers try to build such huge wikis for years

If you look around, the more professional a library is, the simpler the webpage ( you don't believe me? ).

Yes, that is exactly my point in moving to github. The current situation makes the library look bad, that's all, and I think we're both feeling that way. However, there's nothing we can do but move the whole stack to github and brush off the dust.

I think Anton's comment underlines that in a nice way

Manny, the repo at github look beautiful. Juleo must see it

[AntonSynytsia]

d.l.i.w, I don't understand why you're so againts having it on github. Is it because of the kitty in the background?

Perhaps a lot of advanced/profetional project are on github. Take Bullet physics engine, for instance, its on Github, as well.

Even if Newton doesn't succeeds on Github then it won't be late too late to migrate it to some other place.

BTW, Manny it would nicer if you add another header to the README specifying the author, Juleo Jerez.

[d.l.i.w]

Actually we are not that far apart
I fully agree that current situation is far from perfect.

Basically what I'm saying is that moving the wiki as is doesn't improve situation.
Starting a new wiki at github is another thing (moving only information still valid). But this means a lot of effort - you can't expect random github users to do this job.

As you are mentioning Bullet - right, they are at github and that's certainly a good thing, but AFAIK main activity still takes place on their web page and forum.

And still I think it wouldn't harm to remove legacy stuff from this website and provide up to date information.
For Newton this forum *is* the main spot of activity, I dare to doubt github can replace it.

A small - bit off topic - remark:
I remember very well people begging Julio for years to open source this library, as this would enable them to contribute. There was a big "hype" when Julio actually did it - but in the end it went as silent as before.
I don't know how many people actually did what they claimed and contributed - at least I did.

So yes - move the code to github, provide a nice readme, basic and quickstart information, but don't drop this website.
It's still useful, for example if you wanted to provide a doxygen API documentation in future, something github can't do (can it?).

It's not that I want to block you, on the contrary I'm planning to help out here (e.g. in th wiki) for quite some time.
Unfortunately I was too short on time so far - I even have a patches lying around here - still didn't manage to send them to Julio.

But as I said, in the end you have to let Julio decide ( I don't know if you are in contact with him directly e.g. via pm).
There is no sense in forcing something he might not want - or blocking something he might fully support

[manny]

So yes - move the code to github, provide a nice readme, basic and quickstart information, but don't drop this website.
It's still useful, for example if you wanted to provide a doxygen API documentation in future, something github can't do (can it?).

Yup, github can host doxygen API's just fine - heck any static websites work perfectly with github pages.
I already said it, keep the forum but redirect to github with the domain, imho this is key to showing the world that we're alive and kicking. Julio is highly active on this project and this has to be front and center.

BTW, Manny it would nicer if you add another header to the README specifying the author, Juleo Jerez.

Done

[Julio Jerez]

we are going to github this weekend.
My guess is that maybe is best to clean up the repository and adding again so that is simpler to the change I has made afte you added the initial commit.

I like the idea of having another place to make post and comment, I had to close the forum registration about 4, other ago, because the only people registering and making post were advertiser and
porn site.
If they is a site that is dedicate to control that\, then that better. Google is grate but turned out no to be what I though.

GitHub it is, this weekend.

[manny]

we are going to github this weekend.
My guess is that maybe is best to clean up the repository and adding again so that is simpler to the change I has made afte you added the initial commit.

Don't worry I'll just feed in your changes manually.

Rebuilding the repository with the SVN history and user transformation takes quite a while, about 1-2 hrs depending on connection speed. Each svn revision has to be downloaded and converted into a git revision and the reuploaded.

GitHub it is, this weekend.

glad to hear that.

[manny]

@julio, I have just commited a fix for newton to compile without warnings. You can review it here: https://github.com/MADEAPPS/newton-dyna ... 22648ce684

The commit fixes the following compiler warning with modern c++ compilers:

WARNING: Empty struct has size 0 in C, size 1 in C++

[manny]

@Julio, check this out. we've made a quick redesign of the dated newton dynamics logo that works in all scenarios, from black/white to white/black framed and colored.
The idea behind the logo is to refresh the brand and include a brand icon that reflects the name and semantics of the project.
So it's obviously an apple, why? We all know Newton's apple story I guess. But there's more to it, the apple is actually tesselated/polygonized to reflect the fact that this library is about realtime situations/rendering and the additional spaces and a downwards pointing shape add some dynamic/movement to the logo.

The first version is the actual logo, the others are variations for different contexts, from print to screen.
This is just a quick draft though.

[JoeJ]

There's a lot of good will, very nice

But i see some problems with the logo: Apples reminds me to... Apple, not Isaac - sad but true i would avoid that.
Also there are severel lines of different width, looks a bit messy or programmer art, and it feels a bit 'broken' (sorry - i'm just good willing too)

The original logo also has problems: There are 2 spots (roatated e AND falling o) - each good logo has only one spot, never more.
Also the falling o is downwards, so depressing - bad. Intel changed it's logo for that reason.

I've had the idea of that screw part - a screw stands for stability and robustness and the rotation for dynamics... blah, blah.
I don't have the original font installed here and can try that next week, if interested...