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

GitHub Codespaces

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 619 posts

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#491

Post by m_mueller »

adamparsons wrote: post #487
icebraining wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github has had a built-in editor for almost a decade, you just had to click the Edit button in the file: https://github.blog/2011-04-26-forking-with-the-edit-button/ (the button has since changed look to a Pencil icon) This is not to disparage you, just to note that it may not have such a great effect.

I feel like even with one-line fixes, having the tests run before committing (to see the CI/CD results instead) would give people a lot more confidence in making those changes. Personally speaking, I'd be worried that I end up making 15 commits to get everything right and the history in that PR would be slightly embarrassing. Having the live linting, intellisense and tests makes pushing a single commit a lot easier.

That was already possible with Travis CI though. Not sure how the situation is now, are they still up and running?

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#492

Post by cheapsteak »

aaanotherhnfolk wrote: post #479
bengalister wrote: post #286

I understand that many companies will be seduced by the offering and what could come next: * No more source code on developers machine so better for security. * No more development environment to setup and all the devs sharing the exact same settings: simplified onboarding of devs. * No need for costly developers machines. * No more infra to setup to host the source code repository, the CI/CD workflows (even if many…

They announced developer productivity analytics in the same keynote as they announced codespaces. It's not just coming, it's here! Funny enough, after introducing the analytics stuff, they started the next section by showing that the more code you write the more security vulnerabilities you have. Which is it, Github? Do I want to stay on top of your SLOC leaderboards so my manager doesn't fire me? Or does writing the…

Do you have link to the developer productivity analytics? Or is it stuck in video form at the moment? Very curious

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#493

Post by codazoda »

op03 wrote: post #272
twunde wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly Github Actions is reusing a lot of Azure Pipelines under the hood. One of the most impressive parts about Microsoft's recent acquisitions is how quickly essentially two separate companies are now sharing code. It's hard enough to get different teams/products in the same company to use shared code in a meaningful way, and Microsoft has accomplished it with a new company.

All that is nice. But who are they building this for? Who is asking for this stuff?

I've been looking for a better way to make changes to my personal projects from my Chromebook.

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#494

Post by wpietri »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #481
wpietri wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free is a huge minus in my book. If I'm not the customer, then I'm the product. I'll happily keep paying for my JetBrains all-product license: https://www.jetbrains.com/all/

Github has made their pricing model and the motivations for it pretty clear. They subsidize their hosted service with enterprise self-hosted pricing to justify expanding their feature set. This has been true for a long time, well before the MS acquisition. The things that have changed are: - Developments that were in place were released. - The subsidization model made pricing structure changes possible. None of this…

That's an adequate slam at the end there, but I'm more interested in your claim about "to justify expanding their feature set." How about you give me the elevator pitch on that. Because the obvious alternative explanation is that Github was doing what a lot of companies have done: use a loss-leader pricing scheme to establish market dominance, allowing them to charge more to customers for whom that dominance is a feature.

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#495

Post by waheoo »

m_mueller wrote: post #491
adamparsons wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like even with one-line fixes, having the tests run before committing (to see the CI/CD results instead) would give people a lot more confidence in making those changes. Personally speaking, I'd be worried that I end up making 15 commits to get everything right and the history in that PR would be slightly embarrassing. Having the live linting, intellisense and tests makes pushing a single commit a lot easier.

That was already possible with Travis CI though. Not sure how the situation is now, are they still up and running?

The difference is habbit.

We are not in the habbit of doing this now.

This change may change that habbit and encourage a new one.

Im not saying it will, but its naive to brush literally every suggestion off because you can already do something similar.

At least think it through before making a judgement on a new idea.

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#496

Post by waheoo »

baby wrote: post #459
icebraining wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github has had a built-in editor for almost a decade, you just had to click the Edit button in the file: https://github.blog/2011-04-26-forking-with-the-edit-button/ (the button has since changed look to a Pencil icon) This is not to disparage you, just to note that it may not have such a great effect.

You still have to fork

Because implementing a shadow fork is sooo hard.

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#497

Post by waheoo »

AgentME wrote: post #446
SkyMarshal wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the one particular aspect I mentioned isn't for you then why even bother wasting your valuable time responding? Just go read their website instead and see if there is something for you. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but at least then you'd know definitively. Much better use of your time and effort. I'll even save you a few clicks: https://drewdevault.com/2018/11/15/sr.ht-general-availabilit... https://sourceh…

I posted because I think my post would be useful to other people who are considering alternatives to GitHub but also like rich PR workflows like GitHub has, and because I think it's good to encourage would-be GitHub alternatives to invest in that area. I've actually been following Sourcehut's mailing list and updates since forever because I find their philosophies interesting, but not right or practical for my own wo…

Github flow is garbage.

Its broken by design and forces a subpar experience on top of something that actually fucking works.

Maybe you find it nice and dumbed down, good for you. The rest of us want git to actually be git.

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#498

Post by pabs3 »

throwaway43423 wrote: post #484
sally1620 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical advancements are always held back by politics. This is one of the main advantages of GPL, there is no CLA to sign.

CLA's are imposed by companies, not licenses. I'm quire sure that companies with OSS projects under GPL licenses would still want external contributors to certify that the code they contribute is theirs to contribute and can legally be licensed as GPL.

Indeed, there is the Developer Certificate of Origin for that:

https://developercertificate.org/

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#499

Post by edjrage »

marceloabsousa wrote: post #218
donmcronald wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be ALL developers getting locked in. You're seeing a 5-10 year plan in action here. 1. Create a popular, locally run dev editor. 2. Shift it to the cloud. 3. Build all new features into the cloud version only. 4. Ignore the locally run version until it's obsolete. 5. Developers rent the cloud version forever. The GitHub integration is going to be amazing for Microsoft because the allure of clicking a bu…

For me, the real appeal is to be able to share dev environments easily and make software development truly remote friendly. In the end, it will come down to latency, usability and pricing. I do agree with you though - I'm not paying $2K+ for a macbook pro and then pay to run VSCode in the cloud -- something doesn't add up.

... Then don't buy a $2K+ MacBook Pro?

Re: GitHub Codespaces

#500

Post by thwarted »

hamandcheese wrote: post #437
thwarted wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite sure. Here's the documentation. https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/remote/remote-overview It seems like it runs all the functionality on the remote end, and the vscode instance you're running on the machine in front of you is just the GUI. To install this, you need ssh access, and then it drops some binaries on the remote system and uses ssh to start them up -- so it looks to a layman trying to get this working…

So then perhaps you could mount the remote file system with something like SSHFS and use VS Code locally? I don’t understand what VSCode could provide that would be useful while not executing any code on the server side. It sounds like what you’re really asking is that vscode be made compatible with older version of glibc?

sshfs is god awful slow for heavy local editor use. I don't understand what vscode provides other than an editor when all those capabilities are something that already exists when working directly on a remote machine, either.

I am asking that vscode be made compatible with older, established builds of glibc; or that the server component be open source so it's potentially possible to get it to work.

Post reply on HN