How Github has changed the open source world • Hacker News Board

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#11

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 3:52 AM UTC

Corrado wrote: post #8

As a Ruby developer its sometimes hard to know if a particular Gem is still being actively maintained or if there is a better, more recent alternative. I find that Github does an outstanding job solving both problems. If there haven't been commits in the last year (6 months?) I'll generally look elsewhere. That elsewhere is generally the "Network" page. :)

Y'know, there are some projects that haven't had commits for a while because they do exactly what they're supposed to do, and don't need a bunch of commits. I consider it a good thing when a project gets to the point where nobody can find any bugs and they stop adding features because it has enough of them already. I sure as hell don't want my quick, clean, elegant, productivity enhancing window manager to turn into a featuritis infected monstrosity like OpenOffice.org, after all.

---

edit: Actually, my window manager of choice has basically been abandoned by its developer several years ago, and it's still bug-free, stable, and lacking basically nothing. I finally came up with a feature enhancement I'd like it to have today, after using it for five years with no complaints or wants -- and that enhancement is really just an improvement of an existing feature.

More to the point, it's an enhancement that no window manager has, so I'm likely to need to write the code for this feature enhancement myself if I want it badly enough. I may pick up maintainership for the project to do just that.

Think about that a moment: one feature enhancement requested in have a decade, merely an extension of an already existing feature, and it's something entirely new to window managers as far as I'm aware. This thing has had no need for additional code in all that time, and it has been better as a result of all that.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#12

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 3:52 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #7

With github, it generally feels like the focus is on a developer, whereas with something like sourceforge the focus is on the project/code. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing either - I think it's generally been a positive shift.

The same is true of BitBucket, and kinda Google Code as well, you know.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#13

Post by kneath » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 4:24 AM UTC

apotheon wrote: post #10

jmuk wrote: post #2

I would agree with the author, but I am still wondering why other platforms do not win. I mean, for example, SourceForge or code.google.com. Except for the first point, most hosting sites provide exactly same functionalities. Then, I guess, the point is 'easiness' or fancy/cool user interface.

BitBucket actually does everything GitHub does on that list of ways that GitHub supposedly changed the world. In fact, I find the BitBucket interface generally easier to use and easier on the eyes -- and, my God, the colors on the GitHub issue tracker pages are fucking awful . . . . but somehow GitHub gets so much attention that many people think it's the only code hosting site in the world, just like so many idiots…

Bitbucket has public, discussable Pull Requests? I'd love to see them.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#14

Post by harryh » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 4:27 AM UTC

SingAlong wrote: post #9

From what I've seen, a Github profile now influences the hiring process too.

This is definitely true. I'll often check to see if a candidate has a github account when making a hiring decision. Having some interesting/good code up there can definitely move the needle a bit on a hire/no hire decision.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#15

Post by davidwparker » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 5:03 AM UTC

apotheon wrote: post #12

mgkimsal wrote: post #7

With github, it generally feels like the focus is on a developer, whereas with something like sourceforge the focus is on the project/code. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing either - I think it's generally been a positive shift.

The same is true of BitBucket, and kinda Google Code as well, you know.

I'd agree about BitBucket, but Google Code doesn't nearly focus on the developer like the other two. It's not really made for/with the general sense of community and conversation.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#16

Post by Pyrodogg » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 5:06 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #14

SingAlong wrote: post #9

From what I've seen, a Github profile now influences the hiring process too.

This is definitely true. I'll often check to see if a candidate has a github account when making a hiring decision. Having some interesting/good code up there can definitely move the needle a bit on a hire/no hire decision.

When looking into a candidates work do any of the other platforms or services come to mind at all or is it solely Github that you check?

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#17

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 5:22 AM UTC

davidwparker wrote: post #15

apotheon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is true of BitBucket, and kinda Google Code as well, you know.

I'd agree about BitBucket, but Google Code doesn't nearly focus on the developer like the other two. It's not really made for/with the general sense of community and conversation.

I hesitated before including Google Code. I believe that it technically meets the qualifications of the features mentioned in the 7 ways list, but it really falls short of both BitBucket and GitHub in terms of its feeling of being a social code site. I guess Google Code is more optimized for searching, rather than sharing -- which makes a certain amount of sense, given its creation by the king of search, but results in a site that simply doesn't draw my interest as much as BitBucket.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#18

Post by kenjackson » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 5:36 AM UTC

X-Istence wrote: post #3

I have only recently become a major convert into the DCVS world coming from Subversion and CVS before it. When I first started going I found that git was rather hard to for me to wrap my brain around, especially since it so radically changed the way certain commands worked. So I looked at Mercurial and felt much more at home as it felt like Subversion. Since then I've wrapped my brain around Git and absolutely love i…

* When I first started going I found that git was rather hard to for me to wrap my brain around, especially since it so radically changed the way certain commands worked.*

I've found Git really easy to use coming from SVN. My main problem has just been the Windows tools haven't been as intuitive as Tortoise. What issues did you first have with Git?

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#19

Post by 46Bit » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 6:12 AM UTC

apotheon wrote: post #11

Corrado wrote: post #8

As a Ruby developer its sometimes hard to know if a particular Gem is still being actively maintained or if there is a better, more recent alternative. I find that Github does an outstanding job solving both problems. If there haven't been commits in the last year (6 months?) I'll generally look elsewhere. That elsewhere is generally the "Network" page. :)

Y'know, there are some projects that haven't had commits for a while because they do exactly what they're supposed to do, and don't need a bunch of commits. I consider it a good thing when a project gets to the point where nobody can find any bugs and they stop adding features because it has enough of them already. I sure as hell don't want my quick, clean, elegant, productivity enhancing window manager to turn into…

This feature bloat is exactly my issue with a lot of commercial software - especially Photoshop. With each release, it includes a load of junk most people don't want, but new ways to make files incompatible with old ones so that people have to upgrade, as well as bug fixes that should in reality have got patches.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#20

Post by panic » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 6:19 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #7

With github, it generally feels like the focus is on a developer, whereas with something like sourceforge the focus is on the project/code. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing either - I think it's generally been a positive shift.

It may be true that github focuses on the author (after all, projects are github.com/AUTHOR/project), but I'd say that focus is secondary to the code. Compare a project page on sourceforge (e.g. http://sourceforge.net/projects/azureus/) with one on github (like https://github.com/jquery/jquery). A sourceforge project page is just a vague arrangement of links, while github shows you the source and README right away. The author is given about the same amount of space on the page in both cases.