Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear GitHub

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 491 posts

Re: Dear GitHub

#441

Post by bad_user »

While I like to bitch and moan about stuff myself, I don't really agree with the first point.

What I like about GitHub's issue tracking is that (compared with alternatives, such as Redmine or Jira) it is free form. It doesn't force users to fill information such as steps to reproduce and I don't think it should. And that's because the needs of every project is slightly different. Consider how different the "steps to reproduce" are for a web user interface, versus the usage of some library. Yes, it can be painful for an issue to not provide all the information required, but on the other hand GitHub does a better job than alternatives at fostering conversations and keeping people in the loop. I've even seen projects use the GitHub issues as some sort of mailing list.

On the second point, I do agree that GitHub needs a voting system for issues. Given that GitHub has long turned into some sort of social network, adding a voting system for issues is a no-brainer. But then a voting system doesn't address the problem of people getting frustrated about issues taking too long to get fixed. +1's are annoying, but sometimes that's a feature and I've been on both sides of the barricade.

Re: Dear GitHub

#442

Post by pluma »

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #56

While I applaud the initiative, it's also a pretty strong indictment of the JavaScript / node.js community that there is not even a single non-male OSS maintainer on this list of important JS projects. What is being done in the JS community by those who lead it to make progress on this and who is leading that charge? If the answer is "Nobody", why is that true?

Addendum: if all the non-males majoring in literary/communications/gender studies who complain about the lack of diversity in STEM would major in STEM, maybe they would no longer have anything to complain about. Whining isn't a science.

Re: Dear GitHub

#443

Post by aidenn0 »

asb wrote: post #61

There's been no mention of phabricator yet so I thought I'd give it a shout out. It's used by LLVM, FreeBSD, Blender, Wikimedia and others and I love it. It's under very active development and even if it doesn't solve every issue in this letter, by using an open source tool for development you of course have the option to customize it to the needs of your community.

Phabricator is great! I host it for a couple of my projects. I love it, and it was easy to setup.

Seriously: if you have a web server (or php hosting) anywhere, try out phabricator; it's easy to setup, and you can even point it at a github (or any public git/svn/hg) repository to fiddle around with its features, as hosting the repository inside phabricator is not mandatory.

Re: Dear GitHub

#444

Post by Alupis »

gabriele wrote: post #418
hk__2 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the use-case of this?

I have an account that is only for private repos and I don't want that account to appear on search engines for my real name. I also have a public account that I use for contributing to public projects so it could also help to avoid duplicate accounts in search results. All accounts should be searchable for username/real name with GitHub's search anyway.

Just curious, why not have just a single account?

Your private repo's and contributions are not made public, so there's no "risk" involved.

Re: Dear GitHub

#445

Post by pvorb »

simoncion wrote: post #251
pvorb wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you shouldn't use Google Docs for such an article (even if it comes in the form of a letter). Nobody expects the concept of pages on the web (as in books, not as in web page).

Comments like these baffle me and I have to wonder * Are "we" in such a huge hurry that we don't look at our scrollbar to see if there's more to the document that we're viewing? * How did "we" get so incurious that we don't even attempt to scroll down to see if there's more information to read? I mean -seriously- the intended audience for this particular open letter is technical people .

Often browsers don't show a scroll bar at all like on my phone, if you're not actively scrolling.

And yes, most of the time "we" are in such a hurry. At least I am most of the time. Time is limited.

Re: Dear GitHub

#446

Post by pvorb »

simoncion wrote: post #365
jacalata wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you....not read the open letter? Or not realize that the scrollbar for this one goes all the way to the end of the page, and then there's an inline link saying 'see more signatures'?

When I read the letter, I saw that it extended across two printed pages. Were these printed pages not the pages to which pvorb was referring to? After re-checking the link: Ah! See, the document that you are looking at is hosted on Github. At the time of my comment (~six hours ago), it was a two-printed-page document hosted on Google Docs. dang comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10907271 (four hours…

Yep, I've been looking at the Google doc. Basically I think it's just a bad way of publishing things online.

Re: Dear GitHub

#447

Post by sytse »

sytse wrote: post #396
sytse wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some open source projects with a large user base taking the step to us, for example https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman Regarding the three demands in the doc: 1. GitLab has issue templates in EE and on GitLab.com https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests/28 2. GitLab has the award emoji function that doesn't spam and acts as a voting system https://about.gitlab.com/2015/11/22/gitlab-8-2-release…

We're working on a response to all the issues in the letter in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/8938

We've published our response https://about.gitlab.com/2016/01/15/making-gitlab-better-for...

Re: Dear GitHub

#448

Post by vmarsy »

jessaustin wrote: post #425
vmarsy wrote: post #180

A lot of these points are fair and interesting, but I fail to grab some of the points, especially that one: Ability to block users from an organization. What does blocking users mean? Blocking from commenting/making PR/cloning? Why blocking a whole organization from an open source project? What would prevent such users to use a personal account instead to do what they organization counterpart is blocked from anyways?

A more plausible interpretation would be that a particular GitHub organization might wish to block the inputs of a particular user across all its projects. That is, the phrase "from an organization" is adverbial and clarifies "block" rather than "users".

You're probably right! I don't use organization accounts so I'm not sure what was the issue, it would be to prevent haters to troll on every project of a particular company?

Re: Dear GitHub

#449

Post by shampine »

Alupis wrote: post #444
gabriele wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an account that is only for private repos and I don't want that account to appear on search engines for my real name. I also have a public account that I use for contributing to public projects so it could also help to avoid duplicate accounts in search results. All accounts should be searchable for username/real name with GitHub's search anyway.

Just curious, why not have just a single account? Your private repo's and contributions are not made public, so there's no "risk" involved.

I think a lot of companies forced this because for a while the api permissions weren't granular enough when dealing with private repos on organizations. They added the "Third-party application access policy" sometime in the last year or two. I might be wrong though.

Re: Dear GitHub

#450

Post by dabernathy89 »

People often ask why WordPress doesn't use Github for its primary development (they do have official read-only mirrors there), and it's not just because they already had an SVN-based system in place when Github came to be. It's because the tooling they already had was more sophisticated, especially regarding issues.
Post reply on HN