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

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#141

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hmm based on this, the .org tld and the server providers can have control over the project too. Right? No, pretty obviously not. For the domain, this has already been answered. For the servers, it's trivial to move your setup to a different hoster with no visible effects to the outside. > If so, we should use an open source distributed protocol. Like ... git and email? Yeah, we should.

Git and email isn't sufficient, surely you need a repository as well, a listserver in your implementation I guess?

A respository and a listserver are not protocols.

Also, with git you have a repository as soon as you start using it. If you mean something like a centralized repository server: No, you don't actually need that. You can serve a git repository from your workstation just fine for others to pull from. Or you can just move changes around via email.

Also, there are way more ways to use email than for mailing lists. You could also use it as a transport for machine-readable messages between git frontends or whatever.

In and case, I don't get what point you are trying to make.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#142

Post by y2kenny »

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…

Gerrit would be simpler. You would just do `git push origin HEAD:refs/for/`. And I would argue the "now attach/upload bugfix.patch" is as unnecessary and time consuming as the remote/fork branch mechanics that the PR workflow requires (not sure why you didn't include the git send-email/specify email address part.) Gerrit review flow is much simpler than both.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#143

Post by diehunde »

GordonS wrote: post #117

For many years now, it's felt like Apache software foundation is where projects go to die. It's a shame its taken so long, but I'm glad to see this news - it's pretty much guaranteed to increase participation in Apache projects.

What do you mean to die? Projects like Kafka, Airflow and Spark are widely used today and the teams are constantly releasing new features.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#144

Post by dijit »

CameronNemo wrote: post #94
brodock wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Doesn’t oauth help here?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#145

Post by ebg13 »

jordigh wrote: post #40
ebg13 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do they think that they’ll get enough new contributors this way to offset the (more than slight) irony? Absolutely yes. In another thread, someone mentioned that MediaGoblin is basically dead now. I went to look at their repo and it's hosted on Savannah. That definitely hurts involvement.

I'm kind of cynical about this sort of thing and I don't think the hosting really changes the quality of contributions. The amount, maybe, but you get a lot of crappy drive-bys that are about one particular but very enthusiastic person's pet peeves, which probably don't affect the wider userbase. The drive-bys require a lot of work to integrate for relatively little profit. Mediagoblin is dying not so much because it…

> basically there are other things that got ActivityPub before it and could replace it (Pixelfed, Mastodon, Write Freely). Nobody really wants to work on Mediagoblin now because the alternatives are pretty much all better.

Uh, maybe, except that none of the things you list actually do anything close to the core promise of MediaGoblin. MediaGoblin was going to be the libre Flickr/YouTube replacer. Nothing focusing on federation networks has ever gotten even close to that, so it definitely wasn't beaten by those. At best now there's Piwigo, which by the way, is on GitHub.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#146

Post by microtonal »

colbyrussell wrote: post #139
jjeaff wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why am I having to repeat myself here Because you are incorrect and not reading the responses. >you set origin to the branch you own...

Buddy, the entire premise here is user "Monotonic" telling me that configuring remotes is unnecessary and that that in fact he or she just pushes to origin. Don't jump in to the middle of the conversation here and then tell me that I'm not following along after saying to me that, in fact, you configure your remotes to be able to push to them. I know that! That you have to configure your remotes and that you can't jus…

Buddy, the entire premise here is user "Monotonic" telling me that configuring remotes is unnecessary and that that in fact he or she just pushes to origin.

They are referring to origin as the forked repository. E.g. if I contribute to nixpkgs (the NixOS package repository), I only have to fork it once, use that as my origin, and can create branches and submit PRs.

So, you are both right. If you contribute many times to the same repo, you only have to fork once. If you do a lot of drive-by contributions, you'll end up forking a lot of repositories.

(I fully agree that GitHub has a lot of overhead compared to git format-patch/diff. GitHub et al. also have some benefits in terms of communication. At any rate, diff/format-patch are not that hard, so I think any git user should learn it.)

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#147

Post by colbyrussell »

dmoy wrote: post #120
colbyrussell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, you set origin to the branch you own, and upstream to the original project. Then `git push origin foo` works, and you can get a URL printed directly on commandline to start the PR flow. I agree it's a cost per repo you contribute to. However, you can also do it reasonably cheaply with scripts. I recall you have to use hub in addition to git commandline, but once you get it set up then it's basically zero extra…

I feel like I'm in bizarro world here.

I know that these things have to be done. That should be clear. Didn't I make it clear, in my rundown near the root of this conversation, that I'm aware of the existence of these things?

My entire argument here is that it need not be done at all. That GitHub came along, made things _more_ complicated, and everyone's walking around with this idea in their heads that things are easier than they were before. Right?

We had a process in two steps before.

Now we have a process in seven steps OR something like three steps if you do enough bespoke automation on your local machine to smooth over these rough spots in the way that you mention.

The infatuation with GitHub is so intense though that if you point this out, people flip the fuck out. Is it impossible to admit that GitHub made things more complicated?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#149

Post by colbyrussell »

chinhodado wrote: post #123
colbyrussell wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I haven't said anything about them. > # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Where do you "attach" your patch file? Also, if it's not GitHub/GitLab/gerrit/reviewboard/etc. and not mailing list, what other workflow for code contribution are you talking about then?

I'm not going to be strawmanned for the third time in this conversation.

I didn't say it wasn't GitHub/GitLab/gerrit/reviewboard/etc and not a mailing list.

I said it's not a mailing list.

This message board is a cesspool.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#150

Post by kemitche »

dijit wrote: post #20
atonse wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

> To put it another way; if you found out GNU coreutils were hosted on Window machines using IIS web servers then you would probably consider that the people making the software (or, certainly those hosting it) are ideologically at odds with the project and are hypocritical.

From a pragmatic standpoint, if (theoretically) running on Windows/IIS allowed the GNU coreutils project to save enough money to _actually further their goals_, I'd say they'd be foolish not to host that way.

When taking an ideological stance, there are practical considerations to consider. There will always be more and less effective ways to get one's point across.

I'm reminded, a bit, of this comic: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha. Sometimes, you have to participate in the thing you're rallying against, because it's the most effective way to gain traction for your cause.

Post reply on HN