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

241–250 of 255 posts

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#241

Post by int_19h »

rrix2 wrote: post #159
blocked_again wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly why any package versioning that hardcodes URLs to packages is broken by design. URL is where. A package is a what.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#242

Post by int_19h »

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.

What I'd really love is for federated project hosting. Consider: why does a GitHub pull request have to be from one GH repo to another? So long as it has read access for the source repo, it shouldn't matter where it is. Now, it also keeps track of changes in the source, so that it can update PRs etc. But surely distributed notifications are also a solved problem?

Ideally, I should be able to do PRs and link to bugs and commits in comments etc, and it's all federated and "just works".

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#243

Post by pbhjpbhj »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #141
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

It sounded like you were saying "instead of using GitHub (with git obviously), you can use just git and email". My comment was basically trying to say "without a repository how will people find you, how will they catch up on recent dev, how will they view past emails, etc., unless you have a central repository of some sort".

I'm not sure how "just give people direct access to my local git" fills that massive hole, so I assumed your mention of email included implicitly something like a listserve. Otherwise your suggestion seems entirely unworkable to me?

So one of us is missing something. Are you really proposing p2p git + email alone with no other infrastructure? Do you think that's at all optimal?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#244

Post by paroneayea »

anderspitman wrote: post #200
paroneayea wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi jordigh! (Historically) lead developer and co-founder of MediaGoblin here (and ActivityPub spec co-author/editor, so I have more than a bit of insight/bias I think). You're not wrong. And neither is the parent post! MediaGoblin is in "unofficial retirement", but that's because we made progress unexpectedly in other ways, which is good , but not where we realized we were going. Allow me to lay out what happened and…

Would you consider copying this to a blog (or maybe the Mediagoblin website)? Seems like a lot of valuable background/history that I'd hate to see buried forever on HN.

Thanks... I'll post it to my blog later today!

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#245

Post by MoOmer »

rectang wrote: post #233
GordonS wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit, they're spending $800k a year on infrastructure! Honestly, it's difficult to understand why they haven't sooner moved to GitHub, or even GitLab or the like - it feels reckless. That money could be put to far greater use - as an Apache supporter who hasn't ever felt the need to look at their costs, I have to say that I'm very disappointed.

I encourage you (and everyone else) to look more closely at the ASF budget. As noted above, it's 80% for infrastructure, and that is supporting hundreds of projects. Some of those are simple, some are not at all (Hadoop, Cordova, Spark, OpenOffice, Mesos, CloudStack, etc.). In fact, many of those projects rely on other resources not included in that 800k: How much does it cost to run a testing farm for all the device…

Also, those costs cover much, much, more than git.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#246

Post by jeena »

int_19h wrote: post #242
blocked_again wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I'd really love is for federated project hosting. Consider: why does a GitHub pull request have to be from one GH repo to another? So long as it has read access for the source repo, it shouldn't matter where it is. Now, it also keeps track of changes in the source, so that it can update PRs etc. But surely distributed notifications are also a solved problem? Ideally, I should be able to do PRs and link to bugs a…

ActivityPub is the distributed notification system you talk about and yes it's a solved problem. It's already used for Twitter and Instagram like content, see Mastodon and Pixelfed.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#247

Post by GordonS »

rectang wrote: post #233
GordonS wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit, they're spending $800k a year on infrastructure! Honestly, it's difficult to understand why they haven't sooner moved to GitHub, or even GitLab or the like - it feels reckless. That money could be put to far greater use - as an Apache supporter who hasn't ever felt the need to look at their costs, I have to say that I'm very disappointed.

I encourage you (and everyone else) to look more closely at the ASF budget. As noted above, it's 80% for infrastructure, and that is supporting hundreds of projects. Some of those are simple, some are not at all (Hadoop, Cordova, Spark, OpenOffice, Mesos, CloudStack, etc.). In fact, many of those projects rely on other resources not included in that 800k: How much does it cost to run a testing farm for all the device…

Maybe I hadn't given it too much thought before commenting. Do you know where I can find more details of what the 800k goes on?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#248

Post by rectang »

GordonS wrote: post #247
rectang wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you (and everyone else) to look more closely at the ASF budget. As noted above, it's 80% for infrastructure, and that is supporting hundreds of projects. Some of those are simple, some are not at all (Hadoop, Cordova, Spark, OpenOffice, Mesos, CloudStack, etc.). In fact, many of those projects rely on other resources not included in that 800k: How much does it cost to run a testing farm for all the device…

Maybe I hadn't given it too much thought before commenting. Do you know where I can find more details of what the 800k goes on?

Besides the five-year plan, the most easily accessible public records would be the Annual Report and the monthly reports from the Infrastructure V.P. and the Treasurer.

https://www.apache.org/board/plan.html

https://s.apache.org/FY2018AnnualReport

https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Treasurer.html

https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Infrastructure.html

I don't know that there's a more granular breakdown of Infra's budget available online. For what it's worth, the biggest single expense, for many years, has been sysadmin labor. Bandwidth also looms large, though last I knew much of what the ASF used was provided by OSU OSL and SourceForge.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#249

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #243
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

It sounded like you were saying "instead of using GitHub (with git obviously), you can use just git and email". My comment was basically trying to say "without a repository how will people find you, how will they catch up on recent dev, how will they view past emails, etc., unless you have a central repository of some sort". I'm not sure how "just give people direct access to my local git" fills that massive hole, so…

I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong with a centralized repository server or a mailing list, but I just wasn't talking about software, but about protocols, which can be used in that way or other ways.

Though it is maybe useful to distinguish "central repository that publishes the authoritative version" and "central repository that contributors push to", two functions that GitHub kindof purposefully confuses.

The former is what is useful for discovery and catching up, but doesn't need accounts/authentication (for the "public side" of things), it just needs a stable public identity and availability. The latter is technically completely unnecessary with git: There is absolutely no problem with merging a branch from a repository hosted on a completely different server than the authoritative repository. It's just a business decision of GitHub to build a closed system that requires you to enter into a contract with them in order to submit a merge request that is limited to branches hosted on their platform, to create an artificial network effect for their platform.

After all, the primary problem is not that people choose to host a project on GitHub. It's that they demand (or allow GitHub to make that demand with them as voluntary hostages) that you also host your branches on GitHub, or else you can't contribute. If I am a happy Bitbucket customer, or I happen to run my own git server, there is no way for me to submit a merge request to GitHub specifying a branch hosted whereever I happen to be hosting my git repositories.

But no, I was not suggesting any particular implementation, I was just pointing out that those two protocols do exist and can be used, in many ways, as a basis for decentralized Free Software development. And while p2p git certainly is not the solution to all problems, it can be a perfectly useful tool--and with some more tooling around it possibly moreso than what is practical today.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#250

Post by jjirsa »

rectang wrote: post #233
GordonS wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit, they're spending $800k a year on infrastructure! Honestly, it's difficult to understand why they haven't sooner moved to GitHub, or even GitLab or the like - it feels reckless. That money could be put to far greater use - as an Apache supporter who hasn't ever felt the need to look at their costs, I have to say that I'm very disappointed.

I encourage you (and everyone else) to look more closely at the ASF budget. As noted above, it's 80% for infrastructure, and that is supporting hundreds of projects. Some of those are simple, some are not at all (Hadoop, Cordova, Spark, OpenOffice, Mesos, CloudStack, etc.). In fact, many of those projects rely on other resources not included in that 800k: How much does it cost to run a testing farm for all the device…

Note that the asf infra is - at best - insufficient. Cassandra relied heavily on donated Jenkins worker VMs for all tests because the asf donated VMs couldn’t run the test suites. Recently we started moving tests to circleci... because it was better than waiting 24 hours for tests to run in Jenkins.
Post reply on HN