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

GitHub CLI 1.0

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#161

Post by rhizome »

narwally wrote: post #150
Scarbutt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Golang is killing it for these kind of applications.

I haven't done much beyond dip my toes in Golang so far, but I did start moving my blog over from Jekyll to Hugo last week; Man do I love just being able to install a single binary and then get to work. Python, Javascript, and Ruby have a lot of nice packages, but I always have to futz around with the language itself to use them effectively. It's probably a bit easier to get a project up and running in a scripting la…

Are dependency problems with Hugo modules not possible?

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#162

Post by jordanlewis »

clarle wrote: post #140

I tried it today, and it's pretty neat, but without the ability to write comments inline, it's not super useful for any actual pull request reviewing work.

I agree. I wrote a tool that does inline PR commenting on the command line. I hope they add something like this to gh over time.

https://github.com/jordanlewis/re

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#163

Post by rhizome »

chadly wrote: post #144
SergeAx wrote: post #126

Watch those hands, we are at the "extend" phase [0]. Then there will be bait-and-switch move, and voila, Github is not working with git client, just with their own shell. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

This is a tired take. Can a company not legitimately improve their product/offering without this being accused at them? If you are referring to GH being owned by MS now, it's 2020 for godsake. Can we move on from our fathers' trauma? MS has been damn good lately in support of developers and developer tools.

Subtract the bare assertions and questions and your argument boils down to "it is $current_year, and Microsoft has been good lately." Which, I think you might agree, doesn't contain a lot to convince someone who remembers the bad old days.

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#164

Post by SergeAx »

mikorym wrote: post #142
SergeAx wrote: post #126

Watch those hands, we are at the "extend" phase [0]. Then there will be bait-and-switch move, and voila, Github is not working with git client, just with their own shell. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

I think the simple way of passive resistance is calling it "Microsoft GitHub".

Good idea, gonna use it, thanks!

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#165

Post by narwally »

rhizome wrote: post #161
narwally wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't done much beyond dip my toes in Golang so far, but I did start moving my blog over from Jekyll to Hugo last week; Man do I love just being able to install a single binary and then get to work. Python, Javascript, and Ruby have a lot of nice packages, but I always have to futz around with the language itself to use them effectively. It's probably a bit easier to get a project up and running in a scripting la…

Are dependency problems with Hugo modules not possible?

I'm sure there are, but I haven't needed to use any modules so far, so I have no perspective on what kind of challenges they present. But with Jekyll you could get into dependency issues just trying to go through the tutorial and launch a blank template of a site. You didn't need any extra functionality on top of Jekyll to begin to dealing with dependencies.

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#166

Post by staller »

0xmohit wrote: post #129

Wonder if this would lead to the end of hub https://hub.github.com >.

They do not treat hub as an official github project and rather an unofficial open source project that they don't plan to do away with

They have a document where they expand on this: https://github.com/cli/cli/blob/trunk/docs/gh-vs-hub.md

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#168

Post by andra_nl »

pkamb wrote: post #109
kkapelon wrote: post #12

What about https://hub.github.com/ ?

I use `hub sync` multiple times per day. Essential tool. It's the only way to stay sane in a repo with multiple other developers merging PRs. Updates all of your branches in the background to the current remote version.

Damn, I should RTFM, 'cause that sounds super useful!

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#169

Post by londons_explore »

yakubin wrote: post #106
janvdberg wrote: post #83

Is this coming full circle: Git -> GitHub -> GitHub CLI?

CLI or not, it's centralized/siloed all the same. I'm sticking to Git.

It would be really nice if the other features of github could get into the decentralized model of git... I could imagine issues and PR reviews/comments all being mini-commits to some kind of parallel metadata repo under the hood for example.

Re: GitHub CLI 1.0

#170

Post by londons_explore »

Klonoar wrote: post #149
chadly wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired take. Can a company not legitimately improve their product/offering without this being accused at them? If you are referring to GH being owned by MS now, it's 2020 for godsake. Can we move on from our fathers' trauma? MS has been damn good lately in support of developers and developer tools.

I get just as tired of reading this take as the next person, but I don't necessarily think we should do away with it - it'd be akin to ignoring history. I personally remain very uncomfortable with how massive GitHub has become and how ~99% of software development happens on the platform.

There isn't much lock-in yet though. If you wanted to move a project from github to gitlab, you could move the code over with a few commands. Open issues and stuff could be moved over with a script. There isn't much 'network effect' that means your project would die on other hosting.
Post reply on HN