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

451–460 of 491 posts

Re: Dear GitHub

#451

Post by santix »

carapace wrote: post #223

Wow, what a bunch of whiners. If you hate github so much why don't you just fork it and fix-- Oh, right. It's not open source. Well, there's your problem right there. (I have sooooo much more in this vein but I'll spare you. ;-) EDIT: No I won't. Fuck it. This is too ridiculous. These guys (and they are all guys) chained themselves to github's metaphorical car and now they're complaining that the ride is too bumpy an…

+1

Shouldn't we (the OSS community) have an open source, roll-your-own version of something like GitHub? Like, the repo-management equivalent to a phpBB or a Wiki or a Wordpress.

We do have the separate components, though maybe the hard part is to glue them together. But still, it is something what would be worth the time and effort, wouldn't it?

Re: Dear GitHub

#452

Post by dominotw »

pron wrote: post #324
pekk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't have anything against Github relating to the Horvath incident, there are other things like Github shutting down people's projects because they wrote a doc containing the word "retard." In other words, now they are in the business of regulating the content of open source projects (beyond obvious precautions like not hosting stolen credit card databases, child porn, etc.) They seem to think they're to…

> now they are in the business of regulating the content of open source projects That is a very good thing. At this point in time we're beyond speculation. We have some good evidence about the direction online communities take with and without content moderation, and the serious players (most recently Reddit) have come to realize that top-down moderation is absolutely necessary. Fringe, unmoderated activity has a pla…

so what do you think of saudi prince becoming second twitter biggest stakeholder. He is free to censor anti saudi govt speech on twitter?

Re: Dear GitHub

#453

Post by npizzolato »

hk__2 wrote: post #413
bo_Olean wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How reasonable is it to make issue tracking and social interaction part of the SCM itself [with optional web interface] ? git issues "This needs attention" >> Issue #1 created git issues >> List of issues git issues -u #11 >> Issue #11 up voted >> #11 Important stuff, needs attention git issues -d #6 >> Issue #6 down voted git issues -f #4 >> Issue #4 flagged

Your `.git` directory would become huge pretty quickly and you would have plenty of problems with people commenting on issues without having a repo up-to-date. How would you handle conflicts in that case?

How is that a different problem than people editing code in a repo that's out of date?

Re: Dear GitHub

#454

Post by jeddawson »

sethherr wrote: post #395
jeddawson wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guarantee everyone maintaining a large public project on github has private repos and is paying for the service. Open source ties in with my work. Every one of my private repos has open source dependencies hosted on github. Privileging the priorities of my private repos over their public dependencies would be shortsighted.

> Privileging the priorities of my private repos over their public dependencies would be shortsighted

I think that’s Github’s call, but I definitely don’t disagree with you and apologize that I came off that way. Open source projects exposed me to Github and greatly benefit the projects I work on in private repos. I really do want those projects to have an effective platform for growth and stability. I don’t want to water down their needs; I just wanted to offer some balance to the discussion.

My point was simply that this probably isn’t something that is as easy for Github to solve as it may appear on the surface. Any changes they make to the issues system can’t upset the low friction way it works for repos with a modest amount of contributors (and +1’s from clients are appreciated). I hope that positive changes come out of this letter.

If Github were to leave Open Source projects high and dry, they’d lose my business.

Re: Dear GitHub

#455

Post by talmand »

pron wrote: post #437
talmand wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who exactly gets to decide what is "fringe"?

I guess that the majority gets to decide. It doesn't really matter what is mainstream and what isn't, as long as there's a place for both. Broadway and off-Broadway are both fine, but mixing them can cause confusion and for both audiences to be disappointed.

Ah, majority rules. Which is an excellent system, as long as you are in the majority. Hopefully the majority doesn't decide to remove what is not their agreeable mainstream.

Re: Dear GitHub

#457

Post by pron »

talmand wrote: post #455
pron wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that the majority gets to decide. It doesn't really matter what is mainstream and what isn't, as long as there's a place for both. Broadway and off-Broadway are both fine, but mixing them can cause confusion and for both audiences to be disappointed.

Ah, majority rules. Which is an excellent system, as long as you are in the majority. Hopefully the majority doesn't decide to remove what is not their agreeable mainstream.

I didn't say that the majority rules, just that the majority defines what is mainstream. If you want to run an open-source project that promotes misogynistic values, be our guest -- just don't do it on GitHub.

I don't understand what the problem is. In anything -- from TV to theater, music, architecture and social clubs -- there is the mainstream and the fringe. Maybe one day, fringe ideas will become mainstream and maybe not, but as long as the fringe is fringe, it is usually not part of the mainstream. It's pretty much a tautology. The Wire was a superb TV show -- possibly the best -- but it just didn't belong on the broadcast channels. It wasn't censorship (not that I'm suggesting that sophomoric misogynistic jokes are anything like The Wire, but they have no place on GitHub).

Re: Dear GitHub

#458

Post by talmand »

pron wrote: post #457
talmand wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, majority rules. Which is an excellent system, as long as you are in the majority. Hopefully the majority doesn't decide to remove what is not their agreeable mainstream.

I didn't say that the majority rules, just that the majority defines what is mainstream. If you want to run an open-source project that promotes misogynistic values, be our guest -- just don't do it on GitHub. I don't understand what the problem is. In anything -- from TV to theater, music, architecture and social clubs -- there is the mainstream and the fringe. Maybe one day, fringe ideas will become mainstream and…

>> I didn't say that the majority rules, just that the majority defines what is mainstream.

Sorry my friend, that is majority rules.

The problem is we already know what this form of thinking eventually leads to. It's happened several times throughout human history. The problem is one group feeling they have the power to dictate to the "other". Especially when the group dynamic and what is considered other changes frequently, leading to more and more problems.

You don't even need to read history. Just take an objective look in various areas of the world, and culture, today and you will see it.

What you consider your mainstream ideals today may be somebody else's fringe tomorrow. Such as some of these supposed "misogynistic" projects that were using age-old terms that someone recently decided was wrong because they want to somehow change the context of the usage of words. When this happens to you, and it eventually will if the pattern continues, hopefully the group in power will be nice to you.

Re: Dear GitHub

#459

Post by chris_wot »

ggreer wrote: post #320
chris_wot wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like a genuine mistake. He apologised. You've never done something dumb and didn't realise it?

A mistake, I can understand. But each issue I linked to was not a mistake. Each one was the end result of a series of mistakes stemming from a combination of ignorance, negligence, and (occasionally) incompetence. Have I done dumb things without realizing? Of course.[1] But in almost 20 years of software development, I have never created issues resembling the ones I linked to. Bug reports are seen by hundreds of peop…

As much as I respect you for The Silver Surfer, that 5th issue was a very silly mistake.

Re: Dear GitHub

#460

Post by Cassidy57 »

iwwr wrote: post #352
rohamg wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would love your thoughts on ZenHub.io [1] - fully integrated issue tracking, +1, estimates, burndown charts, kanban boards, even a personal todo list - a lot of the features asked for here, right within the GitHub interface and presented a lot more cleanly than competing products. Disclosure: I work on ZenHub :) [1] https://www.zenhub.io

Looks nice. How do I add additional organizations after the first one? Can I send an invite to other organization managers to make themselves available for ZenHub? Thanks!

Each organization is treated separately, all you need to do is install the extension and visit a repo of the other org. From there you'll start a 2 week trial and you'll be able to invite your team members and managers :)
Post reply on HN