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

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#41

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 11:01 PM UTC

stdbrouw wrote: post #32

apotheon wrote: post #11

Earlier 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…

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.

Even that doesn't always apply. The amount of documentation available for my favorite window manager on the (ancient) site for it is mind-boggling. The creator labels the documentation as "comprehensive" and, to quote Bill: "Baby, you ain't kidding."

For most software, though, it's true that documentation can always use improvement.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#42

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 11:02 PM UTC

Peaker wrote: post #28

apotheon wrote: post #11

Earlier 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…

While that may indicate the excellence of the project, it may also indicate a lack of imagination, on your part.

While your comment may indicate thinking outside the box, it may also indicate you are a condescending asshole. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#43

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 11:38 PM 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…

argh, typo

Half a decade -- not have a decade.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#44

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 11:52 PM UTC

mnutt wrote: post #22

apotheon wrote: post #11

Earlier 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…

Not really. Your example -- keeping up with underlying technology upgrades -- may not even require as many commits as the number of upgrades to the underlying technology version. Especially if the software is well-written without unnecessary "cleverness", software can often survive upgrades to the underlying technology without issues.

Sometimes, such changes do need to be made, though; sometimes, you have at least part of a point. On the other hand, those changes might consist of a flurry of commits every time the underlying technology's version bumps, and the project may appear dormant the rest of the time. Some might think it's a "sick" project because it only gets updates in groups every now and then, with three, six, twelve, or even eighteen months between such flurries of updates (depending on the underlying technology), but they very well might be wrong.

[Basing your impression of a given project's quality and health on project activity is dangerous.](http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.065.16.43.41)

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#45

Post by apotheon » Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 11:55 PM UTC

defroost wrote: post #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…

The complete lack of licensing information on many projects is something that Google Code tends to "fix" much better than GitHub, though -- even if Google Code is a little inferior in some other ways. It would be nice if sites like BitBucket and GitHub would do something to encourage people more strongly to actually tell us about the licenses used in their projects.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#46

Post by apotheon » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 2:19 AM UTC

kneath wrote: post #13

apotheon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about publicly discussing pull requests.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#47

Post by apotheon » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 2:26 AM UTC

mnutt wrote: post #23

apotheon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps because Github came out first, and pioneered most of those features? Not to say that BitBucket isn't a nice UI, but what major features did they invent? (not a rhetorical question)

Well, I could be snarky and say "usability" -- which, relative to GitHub, it kinda seems like BitBucket pioneered. Frankly, though, I'm not sure whether there's something BitBucket really "invented". There doesn't seem to be much that either can do and the other cannot, aside from BitBucket's ability to make unlimited private projects (of limited size, of course) where GitHub cannot.

Usability seems to be a major difference between not just BitBucket and GitHub, though -- it's also a major difference between Mercurial and Git themselves. Between the two, I find I like Mercurial/BitBucket much more usable than GitHub/Git. The big advantage GitHub/Git has is popularity, basically, and I've never really been one to let a lack of market-dominating popularity hold me back.

Anyway . . . to answer your question more directly:

I don't pay much attention to the fiddly corner cases where they differ in total functionality, so I don't really know who came up with what features first. They've both been evolving pretty quickly, from what I've seen, so I'm not sure anyone else can really say what features one has copied from the other, unless they were working on one of the two and involved in the imitation process.

I don't even see why it matters. It's like open source software: imitation is a good thing, because good features get more widely used, and everybody wins. It doesn't have to be a competition. I just don't think holding up GitHub alone as some kind of messiah really helps anything.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#48

Post by apotheon » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 2:32 AM UTC

androidjim wrote: post #37

apotheon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I don't remember "Supports Git" being one of the seven signs that Git Christ the Savior has Risen.

> Mercurial is great, but it's not git.

Yeah -- it's easier to use. I've even seen Git users suggest that newbies to the world of DVCSes coming from Subversion or CVS might want to try out Mercurial first because it's easier to pick up, then migrate to Git because that's what the people suggesting this path use.

> It's a hassle to have to learn two ways of doing everything.

That's as strong an argument against Git as it is against Mercurial. Despite this, I've learned to use both -- because "it's about the code". I just choose BitBucket/Mercurial for my own projects; otherwise, I use whatever DVCS is appropriate to the project based on what the project's core team uses.

> Being intimately familiar with git's required these days, especially for Linux and Android programmers. Mercurial's not.

Hah. There are lots of Linux- and Android-related projects on BitBucket and otherwise developed within a Mercurial framework, too -- and not everybody is developing primarily for Linux and Android, anyway. Did you notice, for instance, that the majority favorite language of GitHub hipsters (Python) is using Mercurial now? Your narrow world is not everyone else's narrow world.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#49

Post by Peaker » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 5:43 AM UTC

apotheon wrote: post #42

Peaker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that may indicate the excellence of the project, it may also indicate a lack of imagination, on your part.

While your comment may indicate thinking outside the box, it may also indicate you are a condescending asshole. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Window managers (including tiling ones) are so far from a dead end in research and potential large improvements, that I think that if you can't think of anything useful that any of them does not yet do, you must be unimaginative.

Re: How Github has changed the open source world

#50

Post by harryh » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 6:46 AM UTC

Pyrodogg wrote: post #16

harryh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

github + whatever a quick google search turns up + anything they've linked to on their actual resume