+1 for GitHub. It would make it much easier to find scripts, of which I think there will be plenty over time. I think the forum can still be used for wider discussion if you place a link back there (with tags “midi-remote” and “midi-remote-scripts”).
Contributors could also assist with documentation.
I was just about to put mine on GitHub. I’m sure others will do the same. A central place would be a good idea though. There can always be links between them. If there was a central location it would make it easy to find.
One should remember to GNU or some other such license, or at least put in a disclaimer.
Also, with GitHub people could work together as well.
So +1 here.
I would like to do it in a way that the Local folder is the location for the working copy. Of cause you must make sure the Local folder is empty (by rename it “Local_bak” or similar).
What about repo name “midiremote-userspace”? Or “midiremote-localscripts”? To make it clear it’s not about the factory scripts within the “Public” folder.
fyi @oqion, @MrSoundman, @digitallysane
I like “Local” in the name, and then in the readme it can be explained not to put them in “Public”. Or maybe make a Local directory that is the only one anyone can push to unless you give them permission to push to Public. IDK, I like to make things complicated.
Hi @oqion,
I feel more comfortable with the name “midiremote-userscripts”. And the naming “Public” and “Local” feel a bit strange already. Of cause it’s too late to change that!
It’s not going to make a difference in Germany. And usually if you are in a corporate setting, you can’t use Unlicense forks. MIT will protect against most US lawsuits and the like. If it is one or the other, MIT is typically better.