I hope projects will get rid of JIRA now!
And replace it with what?
Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
101–110 of 255 posts
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 (whic…
The silent GitHub army is out in force today.
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm mystified about what's going on right now. Both versions involve clicking. Both versions involve command-line steps. The difference is that the GitHub version requires more of both, needlessly. That's the point of what I wrote. That's the only point. I don't understand this context where I'm being forced to defend an argument that's been foisted upon me and that I never made and never even thought of trying to ma…
I'm sorry you don't understand it, but you don't get to ignore the implications that spawn off of your argument just because they're inconvenient.
What? You get to imagine some bad argument that would make it most convenient for you, and then demand that I defend that argument, as if it were one that I wanted to make? This is what I'm responsible for? Dealing with someone who resorts to strawmanning the person/idea at the other end when challenged?
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#104It confuses me why so many traditionally pro-FOSS projects move to a not-free-nor-open tool like GitHub. Do they think that they’ll get enough new contributors this way to offset the (more than slight) irony?
I won't argue that GitHub is better. I simply like the experience of contributing on GitHub: my pull requests are available for all to see, it's familiar, it works well enough. Using GitHub is also one less thing I need to learn, which is nice when I'm feel pretty maxed out on learning new things, which feels like most of the time these days.
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better participation. A lot more people know how to use GitHub's tools. It'll likely increase the amount of development, participation, pull requests, etc that ASF projects get. Does it matter that GitHub themselves is not open source?
> 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…
> a lot of free-software/open source software are licensed that way because the projects themselves are ideologically predisposed.
Does GNU audit every contributor to its libraries to ensure they only personally use open source hardware/software? If not, then I'd have a big issue the ideology stance of these organizations.
> So, I mean, you get to choose, if you go the Linux way and say "we are open source for pragmatic reasons" then there's no doublethink. If you say "we believe that all software should be free" while simultaneously forcing your users to contribute using closed source software on a proprietary platform then then you're not practicing your ideology, and worse; you're forcing that non-practice on your developers and users.
With that same rationale, it's also doublethink if every system that an ideologically-aligned FOSS isn't using FOSS based systems. And realistically, this is not how the market works and makes it extremely limiting to find contributors to maintain systems in longevity.
Kind of reminds me of the discussion around people going personally carbon-neutral. Are you going to realistically audit every interaction you have every day to ensure the level of carbon you are consuming? No, you look at the largest/most material areas that you can control and use alternatives there.
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you don't understand it, but you don't get to ignore the implications that spawn off of your argument just because they're inconvenient.
What? You get to imagine some bad argument that would make it most convenient for you, and then demand that I defend that argument, as if it were one that I wanted to make? This is what I'm responsible for? Dealing with someone who resorts to strawmanning the person/idea at the other end when challenged?
I'm not imagining it, and that's the problem you're running into. It's a consequence of what you said.
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? You get to imagine some bad argument that would make it most convenient for you, and then demand that I defend that argument, as if it were one that I wanted to make? This is what I'm responsible for? Dealing with someone who resorts to strawmanning the person/idea at the other end when challenged?
I'm not imagining it, and that's the problem you're running into. It's a consequence of what you said.
[deleted]
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 (whic…
> Please actually point out how the GitHub workflow can be even more simplified than what I outlined above
Adding a remote is generally a one-time cost and is unneeded for every PR, so adding that command (along with all the associated comments) makes it appear more complicated. The reality for most GitHub users is that they simply have to do:
`git push origin `
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 (whic…
> Please actually point out how the GitHub workflow can be even more simplified than what I outlined above Adding a remote is generally a one-time cost and is unneeded for every PR, so adding that command (along with all the associated comments) makes it appear more complicated. The reality for most GitHub users is that they simply have to do: `git push origin `
You can't push to origin unless it's your own project or your team's. We're talking about PR-based workflows.
> Adding a remote is generally a one-time cost
It's not a constant cost, unless you're saying you only ever intend to contribute to one project ever. It's a fixed cost that you will pay N times, where N is the number of projects you contribute to.
Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better participation. A lot more people know how to use GitHub's tools. It'll likely increase the amount of development, participation, pull requests, etc that ASF projects get. Does it matter that GitHub themselves is not open source?
> 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…
"Ideological and eventual practical problems too" is way too general.
The very specific flash-point was Linus throwing an unjustified hissy-fit defending Larry McVoy of BitKeeper being difficult about Andrew Tridgel (Tridge of Samba fame) "reverse engineering" the data traffic of Bitkeeper for inter-operability (really just sniffing client packets with wireshark or something).
Whether the name "git" pertains to Tridge or Linus himself who in retrospect decided he acted like a spoiled brat is still not known :)