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

Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 255 posts

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#91

Post by xorcist »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #43
dijit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it matter that GitHub themselves is not open source? It matters a lot actually; a lot of free-software/open source software are licensed that way because the projects themselves are ideologically predisposed. While that does not hold true for certain (even large) projects like Linux, it certainly holds true for Apache (historically) and GNU. To put it another way; if you found out GNU coreutils were hosted on…

I think the ASF, being non-copyleft, is much less ideological than you're thinking. They're big on having rules to foster healthy community and community based decisions, but the license is really just a laissez faire BSD-ish license with some particular edge cases addressed. It's open-source but flexible and friendly to businesses with hybrid models. Something like GitHub that promotes input from people involved wit…

> the ASF, being non-copyleft, is much less ideological than you're thinking

Do you somehow consider copyleft style licenses "more ideological" than those which are not? That is probably more telling about your own views on licensing than it is on ideologies.

FreeBSD is not copyleft, and they work actively on eliminating GPL from their base. Debian mostly under the free software umbrella, but welcomes BSD code in their base.

Stallman is about as idelogical as you can get but has been known to argue for the MIT license in some cases. Just to mention a few examples.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#92

Post by CameronNemo »

colbyrussell wrote: post #77
pas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess gitlab is the same. The important flow is that there's a very easy way to fork and send a pull/merge request.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

FWIW there is a CLI tool for interacting with GitHub.

https://github.com/github/hub

And I do just leave forks and branches laying around :/

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#93

Post by jyrkesh »

colbyrussell wrote: post #81
rocqua wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attach and upload part, and figuring out how the discussion went on the mailing list if changes are requested.

What makes either of those things harder than what you have to do to use github.com?

It's hard when you have lots of folks jumping into a code review, and you don't want to duplicate effort or you want to rapidly iterate on your code.

You know those email chains that just continue to fork? Where people reply to the original (or the first couple replies) with their wall of text after a couple other replies have already trickled through?

That's what a collaborative, stateful PR solves.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#94

Post by CameronNemo »

brodock wrote: post #38
dijit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, it's not like all of Gitlab is fully open source. I think this is not a fair assessment, GitLabs community edition is fully open source and is a full product. The fact you can add proprietary elements for a licensing fee (which are also "open" in that they are readable, debuggable, etc;) is not at all the same as hosting on a platform which is entirely proprietary.

GitLab Community Edition is being used by major FOSS communities like Debian [1], GNOME [2] and Freedesktop [3]. [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/help [2]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/help [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/help While gitlab.com is based on the Enterprise Edition version, it's 100% possible to host into FOSS only if you wish.

I say this as somebody who has used all three of those instances -- it is an inconvenience to create an account for each project you send patches to (or even just file a bug).

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#95

Post by robaato »

xorcist wrote: post #72
jlokier wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it matter that GitHub themselves is not open source? That's for Apache to decide, but consider: Git itself was written, by Linus Torvalds, because Linux (the kernel) was using non-open source version control at the time called BitKeeper, and the non-open source nature of it was causing increasing problems in the Linux developer community, both ideological and eventually practical problems too, caused by the li…

Just for the historial record: Bitkeeper is much older than both git and Mercurial, hence Bitkeeper can not be said to have taken ideas from Mercurial. Both was sprung in large parts from Linus' description of what requirements he had in order to consider using a version control system for Linux.

I think the comment meant that git took ideas from Mercurial rather than BK taking ideas from Mercurial.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#96

Post by joshuamorton »

colbyrussell wrote: post #77
pas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess gitlab is the same. The important flow is that there's a very easy way to fork and send a pull/merge request.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

Now how does CI work with that first workflow?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#97

Post by chinhodado »

colbyrussell wrote: post #81
rocqua wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attach and upload part, and figuring out how the discussion went on the mailing list if changes are requested.

What makes either of those things harder than what you have to do to use github.com?

If you have never contributed to a project before, the "attach patch and upload/send mail" part is a significant hurdle. You have to figure out which mailing list to use, which is not always easy to find, then find out the person/group to address it to. That alone already discouraged many people from even bother.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#98

Post by colbyrussell »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #90
colbyrussell wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

The majority of git users I know don't know how to create or apply a patch. The few that do only do so in the odd FOSS project that requires it. Whereas when using Github you click a button, get your own copy, do whatever you want to it, and then click a button to open a pull request. You _tried_ to make it look like using GitHub.com is somehow... complicated. But it's dead simple and you even added steps, like "wait…

> You might like the mailing list

Wrong. I fucking hate mailing lists.

> You _tried_ to make it look like using GitHub.com is somehow... complicated.

Please actually point out how the GitHub workflow can be even more simplified than what I outlined above.

> But it's dead simple and you even added steps, like "waiting for PR to merge"

That's not an added step. It's a necessary precondition for the following step (which I even acknowledged is optional!)

If you can actually show, in a concrete way, that I'm using some form of Hollywood accounting and things can be made simpler than what I described, then please do. Every time this conversation comes up, we end up with a dead end when no one is willing to move past (or come up with some concrete support for) their argument that GitHub is "easier". But you've _already_ confirmed that things worked exactly as I described them.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#99

Post by brabel »

latchkey wrote: post #61

In 2009, I brought the idea of using github up on the members@ list and was called a troll. Agreed, at the time, the message was trolling... https://imgur.com/a/JPQtCQ4 I brought it up again later in 2010 and 2011 on the members@ list too. Lots of discussion with the general consensus that it wouldn't happen because it isn't an 'open' platform. I even wrote a blog post about it in 2011, which was also discussed on me…

Nice effort. Some people are slower to adapt than others... as you say in your blog post, GitHub (or something like it) was always going to be much more attractive for people to contribute than the "old ways" of mailing lists... but there's always the risk you'll invest on a platform that will be dead in 2 years. So being conservative is necessary for larger organizations.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#100

Post by colbyrussell »

jyrkesh wrote: post #93
colbyrussell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes either of those things harder than what you have to do to use github.com?

It's hard when you have lots of folks jumping into a code review, and you don't want to duplicate effort or you want to rapidly iterate on your code. You know those email chains that just continue to fork? Where people reply to the original (or the first couple replies) with their wall of text after a couple other replies have already trickled through? That's what a collaborative, stateful PR solves.

Everyone is trying to get me to defend mailing lists. I have no idea why. I haven't said anything about them. In fact, I hate mailing lists.
Post reply on HN