I'm intrigued that no-one mentions launchpad yet, it has roughly the same feature set, but doesn't put the code on the front page.
How Github has changed the open source world
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#32As 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…
That problem is alleviated by the fact that, for libraries, updates to documentation are commits as well, so even a very stable piece of software still needs the occasional commit to update a FAQ or somesuch. All in all, I've been surprised how well activity meters work when vetting software.
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As a ruby dev, this happens to work (for better or worse) because if you're not updating, it may not work with the latest version of ruby/rails/whatever. If I see a rails-related gem that had its last commit in 2009, I know some work probably needs to be done to make it work with rails 3. Perhaps a better metric is the most recent commit combined with the number of open issues. Or maybe just the number of open issues…
> If you're not updating, it may not work with the latest version of ruby/rails/whatever.
Do Ruby/Rails/whoever often have releases that break backwards compatibility?
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a ruby dev, this happens to work (for better or worse) because if you're not updating, it may not work with the latest version of ruby/rails/whatever. If I see a rails-related gem that had its last commit in 2009, I know some work probably needs to be done to make it work with rails 3. Perhaps a better metric is the most recent commit combined with the number of open issues. Or maybe just the number of open issues…
> If you're not updating, it may not work with the latest version of ruby/rails/whatever . Do Ruby/Rails/whoever often have releases that break backwards compatibility?
Some gems don't function correctly with Ruby 1.9.1, and a lot have minor issues with Rails 3.
Although sometimes it's more an issue with the documentation as opposed to code issues.
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#35> Force projects to include a good README
As much as we would like to believe code can be self-documenting, in most cases it is not. Having no README file can make your project more opaque. I probably shouldn't mention this in these parts, but one example of an active project without any README at all is PG's Arc. https://github.com/nex3/arc
I will concede that the Arc project does have a website that covers install instructions, but for new languages where nearly all users are newbies, having no README on GitHub can be an inconvenience.
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#36I love github as much as anyone. However, why is it that Git still drives non-technical people crazy? Why do those people prefer dropbox over Git?
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#37I 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…
Everything? Does BitBucket support git? I thought it was using Mercurial.
Mercurial is great, but it's not git. It's a hassle to have to learn two ways of doing everything. (Being intimately familiar with git's required these days, especially for Linux and Android programmers. Mercurial's not.)
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#38From what I've seen, a Github profile now influences the hiring process too.
Absolutely. A record of solid past work can help overshadow a poor interview (nervousness, etc.) in my eyes.
If I can see the sorts of things a candidate has worked on in the past, I can more tailor the interview and ask more engaging questions. I want to know what they're passionate enough about that they will give up free time to pursue it.
None of this is specific to Github.
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a ruby dev, this happens to work (for better or worse) because if you're not updating, it may not work with the latest version of ruby/rails/whatever. If I see a rails-related gem that had its last commit in 2009, I know some work probably needs to be done to make it work with rails 3. Perhaps a better metric is the most recent commit combined with the number of open issues. Or maybe just the number of open issues…
> If you're not updating, it may not work with the latest version of ruby/rails/whatever . Do Ruby/Rails/whoever often have releases that break backwards compatibility?
It varies, re: Ruby, moving from 1.8 to 1.9 (the latter of which is basically the difference between major versions, though for some reason they aren't calling it 2.0). I think things are worse in this regard for Rails than for Ruby.
Re: How Github has changed the open source world
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What window manager, by the way? I'm in UI-rage mode at the moment, and stability sounds beautiful.
AHWM
It's unlikely you'll find it in the software management system of your Linux distribution of choice, and (being not very experienced with C) I haven't managed to get it to compile on Debian -- but it's in FreeBSD ports, and has no problems at all on that platform. Given that FreeBSD is my platform of choice, that means it works for me.
Your mileage may vary, I suppose.