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

151–160 of 255 posts

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#151

Post by craigsmansion »

beefhash wrote: post #140
craigsmansion wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 Tridg…

> (really just sniffing client packets with wireshark or something). He connected to a BK port and typed "help". BK helpfully output a bunch of protocol help. He used that to implement something minor (I think for archival?) and McVoy wasn't having it.

Right, thanks!

It wasn't even "wireshark", but simply a telnet session indeed.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#152

Post by diminoten »

dllthomas wrote: post #137
diminoten wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not imagining it, and that's the problem you're running into. It's a consequence of what you said.

It's not a direct consequence of anything that was said. It's a possible implication - in the conversational sense of implication, not the logical sense - but those get to be disclaimed.

His stance is literally that using a GUI is harder. That isn't a consequence, it's his core position.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#153

Post by Symbiote »

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…

> Right, you set origin to the branch you own

That's surely equivalently complicated as adding a second remote.

Almost every pull request I've made to a project on GitHub has started with a "git clone http://github.com/example/example.git", since they start with bringing down the source code and finding the bug in the project. Sometimes it's something I can fix, so I then need to fork the project on GitHub, add a remote (or replace origin with my fork's location), and make the commits.

That's not too difficult, but it's not easier than sending a diff to a mailing list. If any discussion is necessary, it's easier to keep track of that on GitHub. It's also much easier to see the patch 3 years later, if the maintainer wasn't interested — that's the big feature which makes GitHub (or its competitors) worthwhile to me.

(A long time ago I sent a patch to Git itself to the Git mailing list, and it was about 6 months before it was applied. However, it was applied, so they must have had some way of keeping track.)

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#154

Post by jeena »

I guess GitHub right now is like Facebook was in 2012, everybody is on it, it's a super vibrant community, it's backed by a huge amount of money, it locks you in (at least with wiki, issues, URLs).

And a second guess is that it will also do what Facebook does, getting out of control by trying to monetize on its monopoly.

It's just so mega ironic that the whole Open Source movement collectively decided that for a little bit of convenience they're more than OK to let Microsoft host their stuff and to sacrifice so much freedom (and especially the URL which does the lock-in to GitHub).

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#155

Post by blocked_again »

jeena wrote: post #154

I guess GitHub right now is like Facebook was in 2012, everybody is on it, it's a super vibrant community, it's backed by a huge amount of money, it locks you in (at least with wiki, issues, URLs). And a second guess is that it will also do what Facebook does, getting out of control by trying to monetize on its monopoly. It's just so mega ironic that the whole Open Source movement collectively decided that for a litt…

Lucky for us GitHub unlike Facebook don't rely on selling advertisments to make revenue. Plus git is decentralised. You can migrate your entire code anywhere you want. As far as issues are concerned I am pretty sure competitors like GitLab supports exporting them via GitHubs awesome API. It's not as bad as make you sound it. Things could have been much more worse.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#156

Post by Boulth »

craigsmansion wrote: post #115
chii wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while that's true, a big project like apache could push gitlab instead, as that's _more_ free and open-source.

They could even consider HN darling and 100% Free Software Forge SourceHut, but it seems major FOSS brands are looking for maximising network effects (and associated lock-in) these days

As much as I like SourceHut using it now by org as big as ASF would mean a lot of troubles. I guess Apache, like Mozilla recently, was looking for product not semi working proof of concept.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#157

Post by Jorge1o1 »

colbyrussell wrote: post #109
Monotonic wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You do push to origin in a PR-based workflow.

The origin you push to is your fork of the project.

Fork, push, pull request.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#158

Post by colbyrussell »

microtonal wrote: post #146
colbyrussell wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 time…

> 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.

That doesn't contradict anything I've written here, or anything I've written in years past on exactly this topic. But this _entire_ branch of conversation started with someone quibbling that I didn't rank configuration of remotes as a zero-cost operation. So, no, we're not both right.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#159

Post by rrix2 »

blocked_again wrote: post #155
jeena wrote: post #154

I guess GitHub right now is like Facebook was in 2012, everybody is on it, it's a super vibrant community, it's backed by a huge amount of money, it locks you in (at least with wiki, issues, URLs). And a second guess is that it will also do what Facebook does, getting out of control by trying to monetize on its monopoly. It's just so mega ironic that the whole Open Source movement collectively decided that for a litt…

Lucky for us GitHub unlike Facebook don't rely on selling advertisments to make revenue. Plus git is decentralised. You can migrate your entire code anywhere you want. As far as issues are concerned I am pretty sure competitors like GitLab supports exporting them via GitHubs awesome API. It's not as bad as make you sound it. Things could have been much more worse.

I can migrate my code, but not all my consumers which use "github.com/my/package" as the import qualifiers all over the place.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#160

Post by jeena »

blocked_again wrote: post #155
jeena wrote: post #154

I guess GitHub right now is like Facebook was in 2012, everybody is on it, it's a super vibrant community, it's backed by a huge amount of money, it locks you in (at least with wiki, issues, URLs). And a second guess is that it will also do what Facebook does, getting out of control by trying to monetize on its monopoly. It's just so mega ironic that the whole Open Source movement collectively decided that for a litt…

Lucky for us GitHub unlike Facebook don't rely on selling advertisments to make revenue. Plus git is decentralised. You can migrate your entire code anywhere you want. As far as issues are concerned I am pretty sure competitors like GitLab supports exporting them via GitHubs awesome API. It's not as bad as make you sound it. Things could have been much more worse.

Facebook had awesome APIs too, I wrote a Facebook App (FBML anyone?) where you could book a table at a restaurant and automatically create a event and invite your friends, until they didn't.

Not sure it makes sense to point out that things could have been much more worse, that is basically always the case, independent of how bad it is.

Post reply on HN