I like having it as a simple way to quickly download a git-free tree of simple projects. So there's one small piece of positive feedback.

You can already get such an archive by clicking on the right bit of the release page. And I believe at any page reflecting a revision. It is easy to get a copy of the repository.

It isn't the case for all projects, but for some there are some pre-build steps that the majority of people who want to install and use the project don't have or even know about. The project can put up the source after those steps are done, and the downloader does the final source building and installation with ease.

As an end user looking at the release page, you can't tell the difference between the easy way (the pre-processed source that will work well for you) and the hard way (you'll need to install and invoke several tools for no real benefit).

The underlying problem is that Github make it really easy for people to end up with the hard way, and not the intended easy way. This benefits no-one. I have no problem with them making the repository files available - I just want them to stop confusing people who go to a release page.

I'm not talking about the releases page, and I don't think @Sir_Cmpwn was either.

Many small projects don't have a releases page. The download zip is just a way of quickly getting the source code for such projects.

To be honest, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was just pointing out that I like having a "download zip" button.

Understood. I wasn't clear that I have no problem with being able to download a copy of the repository from as many pages/places as is reasonable, and there is no need to change that.

The specific top level complaint is about the releases page when visited by a human who would have the goal of building and installing the software release. There the "Source Code" link is misleading if the maintainer has a release file that is the expected one for building and installing the software.

It's also immensely useful for installers like pip that can pull an archive directly from Github using just a URL and no local git install.

This issue is not about tools, but about humans being confused by the releases page. I have no problem with an archive of the repository being available - the issue is that github ui on the release page implies that is the best download to build and install the software, when it can be the least convenient hardest way.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the "Source Code" zip file download. I use it regularly, and have never had a problem.

There is no problem with a way of grabbing the repository contents. Good to have, and shouldn't go away. It is the github ui on the release page strongly suggesting to use that download, even when the project has provided a better archive for users to build and install the software. That better archive can already have several pre-build steps run so the end user doesn't need additional tools of no benefit to them.

To be honest, I didn't even know there was a release page in github repos. I don't recall seeing those. I normally don't expect to be able to download installers from github, so I never really thought to look for such a thing.

I use it semi-frequently and have never had a problem.