331–340 of 491 posts
Do the undersigned send any money to github? It might be better to phrase your demand in the form of a question, "how much can we pay you to do this work for us?"
GitHub's success is based on its community. Simple fairness says the community should be respected and listened to, simple business says if the community doesn't get something back, it will get pissed and go somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> adds cognitive overhead to the process Yes! The maintainers deliberately want to add cognitive overhead so the quality bar for creating issues is higher. By having simple zero-friction forms, you haven't removed cognitive overhead. You've simply shifted the cognitive load into the followup messages asking for clarification of "reproduction steps", "version tested". The issues' threads therefore begin with "meta" ty…
So use a real issue tracker. Most of the big ones integrate with github. Why should they reinvent this wheel?
This first request is the anti-thesis of GitHub's simple approach: >Issues are often filed missing crucial information like reproduction steps or version tested. We’d like issues to gain custom fields, along with a mechanism (such as a mandatory issue template, perhaps powered by a newissue.md in root as a likely-simple solution) for ensuring they are filled out in every issue. Every checkbox, text-field and dropdown…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
95% of all my github activity is in private repositories.
Ditto. Maybe 98%. I think that's a big part of the disconnect I'm seeing here in the comments. Those of us that live in private repos are likely pretty happy with how things currently work especially since we're the ones paying to use the service. If it wasn't working well for our teams, we'd find somewhere else to spend our money. That being said, we're certainly the minority when it comes to users on the platform.
But you're the huge majority of people who give GitHub money. It makes sense not to prioritize the pain points of open-source projects when you lose money by hosting them.
Hi Adam, Addy, Andreas, Ariya, Forbes, James, Henry, John-David, Juriy , Ken, Nicholas, Pascal, Sam, Sindre, My name is Jono and I started as Director of Community back in November at GitHub. Obviously I am pretty new at GitHub, but I thought I would weigh in. Firstly, thanks for your feedback. I think it is essential that GitHub always has a good sense of not just what works well for our users, but also where the pa…
One thing I would love to see for my own projects is a way to temporarily completely block off contributions on threads by people who only watched/starred the repository for less than 48 hours or something like this. When people submit your issue tracker to hackernews/reddit/twitter all hell breaks lose and time gets wasted for nothing.
My experience with Github support is terrible, if not one of the worst, I once had an issue and contacted their support and it took them 1 month to respond to me (literally) I was really surprised by that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting that they don't dogfood the issue tracker? It's a private tracker (private repository) but from what I've seen in the Github blog, they do... it wouldn't make much sense if they didn't.
If they're using it, they're doing so in completely different fashion than everyone else. That is, it's not public for viewing, submitting, commenting, etc. Indeed TFA indicates exactly the sorts of pain points that would be missed by those using the tool in such a radically different way than everyone else. If someone at GH had to wade through all the damn +1's then something would have been done about them years ag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I already saw some of these. Unfortunately, there's no Travis CI integration yet, which I've been using on GitHub a lot. I'm evaluating GitLab CI right now. Am I right, that I have to host a runner myself if I don't want to use a shared runner for my project? > You can setup as many runners as you need. Runners can be placed on separate users, servers, and even on your local machine. Does "local machine" really…
We would love for Travis CI to offer support for GitLab, they can use our new commit status API. But you'll find that GitLab CI is a pretty complete replacement. If you don't want to use a shared runner you indeed have to use a shared runner. Running on your local machine can indeed include your notebook.
My workaround has been to use email notifications exclusively. I have a Gmail filter that applies a label to all notifications and skips the inbox. Then in my mail client I have a smart mailbox that only shows me unread notifications with that label (or that folder, from an IMAP perspective). The smart mailbox then shows me a counter of unread notifications. This way I don't oversee comments when multiple ones are made in a PR.
Problem 1: No context in these notifications. It would be nice if these emails could show the code in question for diff comments or the entire comments thread.
Problem 2: Now what is really bad with these notification emails is that the link "view it on GitHub" sometimes no longer links to the comment I'm being notified of. This happens when the comment was made on a PR on a line of the diff that no longer exists, as sometimes is the case when new commits are pushed. I then have to go to the main PR page, expand all collapsed "foo commented on an outdated diff" comments and manually search for the comment in order to get the context and be able to reply.
By fixing problem 1, problem 2 would be automatically fixed with it and make my workflow much more productive. Is there anyone else annoyed by this?