41–50 of 86 posts
Does anybody use git-appraise (and especially a web client) and have any comments?
Unfortunately the epic comment thread, very talky, none of the key stack holders involved, largely irrelevant chatter... Is a case in point of why github isn't the answer for everything.
Wow, a proper use of the word "epic". I thought the original meaning was gone.
the proposal is cute and funny, basically the author argues that to make the contribution and governance process more open, everything has to be done on github to be more closely aligned with what project X,Y,Z are doing. that is not open or free, that is the exact opposite of being free and open.
Not in the religious/GNU sense.
I wonder if Google really loves Gerrit, or if it’s just a legacy NIH attachment and some of Google’s graybeards just refuse to let it go. Having worked with Gerrit in the past, I can say without a shadow of a doubt, it’s an abomination and I’d lop off a limb rather than voluntarily use Gerrit again.
Do you really think Google can really put their whole development and review infrastructure into the hands of a relatively small company named GitHub? The same platform where you see "GitHub is down" on HN every couple of months?
Because Google's internal and external services don't go down?
Ever tried GAE?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Because those are two unrelated fields, and one is distinctly not productive. Each of your examples is something like "I've been writing go for x years". Using a programming langauge does not make you a compiler hacker. Countless people have been using Linux for years but wouldn't be able to make a meaningful contribution to the kernel. I'm firmly convinced that having to learn something as straightforward and well…
> Each of your examples is something like "I've been writing go for x years". Using a programming langauge does not make you a compiler hacker. Becoming an expert on whatever custom commit process a project has does even less to make you a compiler hacker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub has always had far superior code search features. BitBucket is gradually trying to add these, but they still pale compared to GitHub. I love just going through a repo by searching for things.
Except for when you want to search within a different branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, a proper use of the word "epic". I thought the original meaning was gone.
I doubt the GitHub thread was "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the past history of a nation"
As an adjective it's something that's "extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope".
If one cannot figure out how to setup a development environment (with detailed guides), how can one be expected to actually make a meaningful contribution in a much more difficult domain like compiler development? For this purpose alone I think the current approach is something that Google will not get rid of. Moreover, why on Earth would Google want to create an external dependency for code-hosting and development l…
> If one cannot figure out how to setup a development environment (with detailed guides), how can one be expected to actually make a meaningful contribution in a much more difficult domain like compiler development? Because those are two unrelated fields, and one is distinctly not productive. From the issue: > I ran through the contributing workshop at Gophercon 2017. I even had gone through half of it before. I stil…
I beg to differ: they are both about solving problems; one set of problems (setting up development environment) is strictly easier in terms of cognitive load and actual technical ability than the other (compiler development). If you cannot solve problems from the first set, you simply cannot solve problems from the last.
>And comments (from current contributors no less):
Likewise, there are comments from different contributors, who claim that the current approach is better than GitHub:
>Agree with @ianlancetaylor that Gerrit does provide a better way to review patches.
>I've worked in some places where we've migrated from GH Pull Requests to Gerrit for the reason that GH Pull Requests (until very very recently) were not ideal for a formal review process. Even with the recent changes, the current PR system in GH does not manage revisions of a changeset well. For example, Gerrit includes the commit message as part of a review which is arguably the most important part of keeping a clean and detailed history.
Arguably, there are more people who are in favour of the Gerrit, rather than GitHub, even among those, who have tried both systems.
Kinda scary how de facto Github has become, that external tooling is discouraged. Github is a bad issue tracker, a bad code review tool, an ok wiki and a bad distribution platform. Still, one has to mostly use the whole package to get contributors. (Github has other strengths, though)
Aside: In your opinion what are good issue trackers and code review tools?
Kinda scary how de facto Github has become, that external tooling is discouraged. Github is a bad issue tracker, a bad code review tool, an ok wiki and a bad distribution platform. Still, one has to mostly use the whole package to get contributors. (Github has other strengths, though)
Aside: In your opinion what are good issue trackers and code review tools?
As for the code review tools though, I've not yet seen something that I feel is materially better than GitHub + PRs + some bot-enabled automation. I understand that many people _prefer_ things like Gerrit, but I've found the difference to mostly be opinion, and that Gerrit can be a significant problem in getting contributions - it's quite hostile on first use.