Fork geeknote?

[SanketDG]

geeknote is some awesome software and I am sad to see it being so inactive. Given the community around it is still active, would a fork be possible? A 👍 on this post would help. Interested people who want to take this forward can reply here.

We can then discuss how to make this happen seamlessly.

CC @VitaliyRodnenko

[sean-]

It'd be nice to know what the fate of this software is one way or another. I'd personally be interested in seeing this rewritten in Go because go get -u .../geeknotev2 would be all around epic.

[jeffkowalski]

I've been progressing my fork fairly regularly. It has substantial new features like resource uploading (i.e. attachments), deduplication, and a TravisCI framework for continuous testing. Pull requests are certainly welcome.

[SanketDG]

@jeffkowalski Would you like to move your fork to a new organization? Creating a organization could help us organize better and also encourage new contributors.

Currently there are a lot of pending PRs on this repo that will need to be assessed.

We will also be needing the pypi rights but that depends on @VitaliyRodnenko

[jeffkowalski]

I think most, if not all of the PRs from Vitaliy's queue have been pulled into my fork.
Personally, I'm not interested in creating a new organization for the work, because that'd leave the other contributors behind, and would also disconnect the history, which is useful for debugging, as well as crediting the authors. As well, it's already referenced from Arch Linux as geeknote improved, so moving to a different repo would only create confusion.

[SilkAndSlug]

@jeffkowalski Apologies for the necro. I have a possible solution to the new repo/lost history problem: add the old repo as a remote, and fast-forward merge it into the new. I imagine Arch Linux could update their pointers.

[jeffkowalski]

I'm still struggling to understand the benefit of the proposal. Is there something that we can't already accomplish in the current fork? Why do we need a new organization to host a replica? An example of something you're concretely trying to do today would be helpful.

…

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:06 AM Steve Almond ***@***.***> wrote: @jeffkowalski <https://github.com/jeffkowalski> Apologies for the necro. I have a possible solution to the new repo/lost history problem: add the old repo as a remote, and fast-forward merge it into the new. I imagine Arch Linux could update their pointers. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#363 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADeMIs6qAU2q-JBBevnk0-KpedSH1coks5rDTykgaJpZM4JD4In> .

[SilkAndSlug]

@jeffkowalski : your fork has a bus-number of one, which is an issue in and of itself. If/when you disappear, someone else will(?) fork yours but... that's little use to those who are still tracking the old branch -- which was my problem, yesterday, fighting a bug in Vitaliy's branch which had already been fixed in yours. If you're happy with both of those points, rock on.

[jeffkowalski]

I'm sorry to not understand. What do you mean by bus-number, and what's the associated problem in tracking, exactly? My branch is fully visible, accepts PRs, has an issue list, etc. What would be the difference if it were a fully separate repo?

…

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:16 AM Steve Almond ***@***.***> wrote: @jeffkowalski <https://github.com/jeffkowalski> : your fork has a bus-number of one, which is an issue in and of itself. If/when you disappear, someone else will(?) fork yours but... that's little use to those who are still tracking the old branch -- which was my problem, yesterday, tracking Vitaliy's branch. If you're happy with both of those points, rock on. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#363 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADeMJu5MR_gFEKZ-R2mNpi5nxy3BEUyks5rDp5pgaJpZM4JD4In> .

[SilkAndSlug]

@jeffkowalski :
Bus Number is the (smallest) number of people who'd need to be hit by a bus to kill the project. In the case of your fork, that's you: one.

[SilkAndSlug]

@jeffkowalski

The 'problem in tracking' is that Git(Hub) doesn't have a mechanism to say "this fork has died; use that fork instead".

If Alice or Bob hit git pull origin they get the tip of Vitaliy's (dead?) fork, not yours -- nor whichever fork(s) replace yours in due course. Yes, they could go to GitHub, look at the Network Graph, choose a winner, and change their origin... but Joe SixPack couldn't. His copy of Geeknote doesn't get updates, and that's that.

Moving your fork to an Organisation would allow you to hand the Repo over to your successor, without changing its URL. It'd also allow you to - if that's what you wanted - get help merging PRs, etc.

[SilkAndSlug]

@jeffkowalski

By "if you're happy, rock on", I mean that I have no dog in this fight -- I'm just a user. My hands are full elsewhere. 😀

[SanketDG]

@SilkAndSlug I totally agree with the above points. I hate the Evernote browser app, it sucks. geeknote is an excellent alternative! But the fact that it's ignored makes me sad. There are so many awesome pulls, but none of that is merged in. @jeffkowalski's work is commendable, but moving the repo to an org, would greatly benefit the community.

I mean I bet there is one contributor, who is going like, "yeah this repo is inactive, I am just going to keep this awesome feature I implemented to myself." Nobody would care about pulling to a fork.

All I need is one more person who's with me on this because @SilkAndSlug said, I dont want to have an oragnization created by me with a bus number of one. I need this awesome community.

[GiacomoLaw]

I'd be happy to help. 😄

[dotarmin]

What's the status of this project and this thread? Is anybody going for an "official" fork?
It's really sad this project is not active any more because it's the best Evernote client/integration I've used.