Greasy Fork

Assessment

You can upload your own libraries yourself (post them as a script and choose "library" as the type.

I can upload GM_config as a third-party library to this site for you to include, if you like.

I'm not sure of the purpose of http://usocheckup.dune.net/49366.js - do scripts still need an update checker now that Greasemonkey can do it itself?

Would be cool if you could upload GM_config

You can upload your own libraries yourself (post them as a script and choose "library" as the type.

K, done. It would be on Github but there's an issue with sizzle's version and my version. Technically, he has the rights even though we both developed it. He branched off from my code some time ago.

I'm not sure of the purpose of http://usocheckup.dune.net/49366.js - do scripts still need an update checker now that Greasemonkey can do it itself?

Not in Greasemonkey, no. But I use it for 2 reasons.

1) Tampermonkey and other add-ons - I don't think it has the capability to auto-update.
2) I was using it to monitor installs, since uso install count broke a while back. Most of my scripts (especially the recently created ones) don't have it.

In case it wasn't clear, you will have to update your script to point to the Greasy Fork hosted versions of the libraries you posted for it to go live.

Even JSL? What's wrong with Github?

You can read about requires at https://greasyfork.org/help/external-scripts

So, can you explain why Google code is ok but GitHub is not?

Google Code (as in googlecode.com) isn't OK. It's user-submitted stuff. Google APIs, as far as I'm aware, contains only scripts posted by Google, so it's unlikely to change or contain anything bad.

Well, excuse me if I don't want to point my @require to GreasyFork, since this script will go up on other sites, too. I'd rather it be GitHub.

Yeah, I can see how it wouldn't be good if you were submitting your script to multiple sites. It especially wouldn't be good for anyone who wanted to sync their scripts. However, allowing require-s from GitHub would allow people to bypass Greasy Fork's anti-malware checks.

What if I made a feature where on your account, you can supply require URL "translations". So you could upload your supporting scripts to Greasy Fork (and sync them to your GitHub if you like) and define the translations from the GitHub URLs to the Greasy Fork URLs. Then, when you upload your script, the GitHub URLs would be swapped out for the Greasy Fork URLs.

So essentially, you would need to set it up once, then you could just make changes on GitHub and Greasy Fork would automatically pull in all your changes, while Greasy Fork still has the ability to perform its checks. Does this sound acceptable?

Wow, that's quite generous of you =) I wouldn't want you to give me special features, though. Also, the syncing wouldn't really be of use since I upload each version as a different file; the files in the "versions" folder (that I link to) never change. I'll just change the @require when I upload here, for now.


ps: About the CSS on these threads... Would you mind if I threw in some suggestions for styling certain tags (quote, code, pre, etc)?

ps: ps: I think the updating feature on Greasemonkey checks Userscripts.org only (which is down), so I'd like another update checker. Is it alright if I use Marti's somehow (usocheckup.dune.net)?

OK, well I won't implement the "translation" idea unless someone else has a need for it...

You can suggest CSS for the forum, for sure! Probably best to put your suggestions in a GitHub issue.

Updates in previous versions of Greasemonkey may have only worked with userscripts.org, and maybe there's still some special handling for it, but updates with Greasy Fork (or any other site that's on https) work just fine now.