81–90 of 166 posts
"Once your revenue reaches a minimum of $500 USD for the month, you'll receive an electronic payment from GitHub for 75% of the sales price." So it looks like Github takes a 25% fee. I thought maybe they would do something more innovative regarding the fee structure, or maybe have a lower intro fee like 15%. But here is seems pretty much on par with the 30% of the Heroku marketplace.
Hm, I like Github but I don't like this. This is a great move, but we already have a code hosting monoculture, and this subtly piggy-backs on it towards lock-in for tooling. Github knows orgs have inertia. Sorry for the slippery slopeism. I'm just imagining a future where shipping an app without a middleman moves to inconvenient, then annoying, then difficult, then impossible. Because this is exactly how we lost the…
>this subtly piggy-backs on it towards lock-in for tooling FTA: "More than a dozen integrators have apps in GitHub Marketplace today, including Travis CI, Appveyor, Waffle, ZenHub, Sentry, and Codacy" Travis CI and many others were widespread prior to this marketplace. Seems to me that creating a marketplace is a logical way to collect these third-party services in one place.
"query { viewer { login }}"
My understanding is that this request should return the same result, whether or not it is a POST or GET request (http://graphql.org/learn/serving-over-http/#get-request). Could someone provide some clarity on this?
I've recently been exploring GraphQL. It's an excellent way to design and maintain Web APIs imo. GitHub is a great resource for learning how GraphQL works. I've been using the GraphiQL tool to experiment with it. However, there is a big issue with the GraphQL implementation in that requests using the POST method work, but the mirror GET requests do not return the same results. For example, see the response for the si…
I'm fond of the idea of allowing the query itself to contain every head-meta-data as well, i.e.,: `query { viewer(auth_token: "...") { login }}` because such queries are possible to copy in a URL without having to worry about side-channels of auth.
Surely the unsubscription laws don't allow you to retroactively add more options that are defaulted to being on that subscribe you to things you were never subscribed to in the first place? Seems like an easy way to spam people without having any repercussions.
For those who want to disable this anti-feature, look at the bottom of https://github.com/settings/emails.
The shameless support posts by execs/founders at launch partners are slimy! You guys should be ashamed. This isn't your marketing site, it's for discussion.