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

GitHub Discussions Beta

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#121

Post by shadowfiend »

wincent wrote: post #116

New features are great, but I wish they'd make more of an investment in improving their core code review functionality. The lack of an "interdiff" view (between revisions of a PR) and the lack of a proper way to mark PRs as dependent on one another really limit the utility compared to other code review platforms (thinking specifically of Gerrit and Phabricator/Differential here).

While it's a bit tucked away, when you are viewing the changes for a PR, there is a dropdown in the top left for “Changes from ”. You can select any range there to view changes from that range of commits.

When you've left a review, you also generally get a “View Changes” button in the conversation that takes you to the changes since you last viewed, if new changes are pushed. The issue with this particular link is it tends to be ephemeral.

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#123

Post by hrpnk »

A problem with such products offered by GitHub is the fact that they're connected to a single repo. This is maybe suitable for monorepo situations or simple open-source libraries. However, teams work differently and need to manage backlogs across many repositories. The context is usually a team, project, etc. This requires pulling in multiple issues across repos into one backlog along with abilities to manage this backlog and calculate metrics.

I've seen some teams manage an 'issues' repository solely with tickets that are later linked to the individual repos' issues and PRs. It's quite a mess and GH does not seem to offer issue statistics and comprehensive query capabilities to manage issues.

Has anyone worked with an issue management system (not JIRA) that would be working across 100+ delivery teams and have decent integration with GH/GHE to show PR progress, issue status, releases, etc.? Any experience with FB's https://phacility.com/phabricator/ for example?

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#124

Post by frou_dh »

kvark wrote: post #18

GitHub is slowly eating the surrounding cities. Github pages replaced our hosted sites. Projects replaced Trello/Waffle and friends. Actions replaced Travis/CircleCI. Sponsors is about to hit Patreon, and now Discussions aims for a piece of StackOverflow pie... I think they are doing great in terms of performance and UI, it's hard to resist the convenience of having everything linked together in a coherent way. But t…

> [GitHub Project boards] replaced Trello/Waffle and friends.

I've actually wondered whether that feature (the Kanban style boards) will end up going away, as it seem vastly underused by the overall community in comparison to Issues/Milestones/Wikis.

Go to a random substantial repo and click on the Projects tab. It's almost certain that there'll be nothing there.

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#126

Post by ithrow »

Tangential question, is github a proof that not every complex app has to be an SPA and it can worked really well or is this legacy thing from their part?

Curious to know if they feel they could iterate faster new features for the UI if it were an SPA.

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#127

Post by sudhirj »

ithrow wrote: post #126

Tangential question, is github a proof that not every complex app has to be an SPA and it can worked really well or is this legacy thing from their part? Curious to know if they feel they could iterate faster new features for the UI if it were an SPA.

A lot of apps that started with Rails take that approach, including Github, Airbnb, Basecamp (which technically started Rails), and a few others.

Some companies start API first or mobile app first, which makes SPAs much more likely.

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#128

Post by dtech »

stevekemp wrote: post #112
dtech wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replaced is incorrect, they're simply competing. Trello and CircleCI are alive and kicking.

CircleCI might be alive and well, but Travis-CI is on the way out, and I'd not be surprised to see CircleCI go out in a few years.

Travis was already on its way down before Github actions

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#129

Post by city41 »

sandGorgon wrote: post #12

Sorely needed. Tons of projects use issues for discussions/questions..or redirect to stackoverflow. I wonder what will be the reduction in stackoverflow due to this ? One request - have a global "discussions search" . Repos are interconnected to each other. I don't want to have to restrict my topic search to one repository's discussions

Sorely needed and really not that expensive of a feature to build. Really nice bang for the buck. This should make Github much more pleasant once it spreads across most projects.

Re: GitHub Discussions Beta

#130

Post by leerob »

ss3000 wrote: post #125

Interesting, I thought this was going to have something to do with their acquisition of Spectrum, but it appears to be an entirely separate in-house feature. I wonder what's going to happen to Spectrum longer term then. https://spectrum.chat/spectrum/general/spectrum-is-joining-g...

I had the same thought. Especially since the Next.js maintainers said that Discussions would eventually replace their Spectrum community.

Maybe GitHub acquired Spectrum with the intention of slowly migrating its userbase over.

Post reply on HN