Live data from Hacker News

Git without a forge

chiark.greenend.org.uk

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Git without a forge

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone has a fancy client-side MUA that gives them trivial access to mbox files. E.g., a typical webmail service will make exporting mboxes into a whole process at best. (And on the sending side, have fun with the lack of git send-email integration. I've spent far more time than I'd like manually patching up References and In-Reply-To headers.) Of course, the classic response is "get a better MUA you luser", bu…

> Of course, the classic response is "get a better MUA you luser" Git is distributed and allows you to work efficiently with poor connectivity, having full history available at any time, which is a big accessibility point for people with limited connectivity (and also helps people working while traveling, for example). If you do have any email client, you get all of this as well, plus arbitrarily powerful, low-latenc…

> Try replacing "webmail" by "Notepad" and "client-side MUA" by "emacs/vim" to see how your argument sounds.

As it happens, I'm the kind of masochist who uses Sublime Text with no plugins for most of my programming (and literal Notepad for most of my note-taking on Windows), so I find value in letting people stick to their familiar workflow, even if some might see that workflow as somewhere between 'grossly inferior' and 'literally unusable'.

The nice thing with remote Git repos is that you don't need to care at all about how they work internally: you can speak to them using the same Git client (or GUI wrapper, alternative Git-compatible client, etc.) that you use for everything else. Of course, many people would prefer not to use Git at all, but it's a necessary evil to have some client if you want source control, and it doesn't take much work to set up. (At this point, I've installed several source-control tools that I don't really use nor have to worry about.)

But setting up an MUA solely for a git-send-email based workflow is several steps beyond that. E.g., some of the Linux maintainers demand inline patches, which physically cannot be done through many webmail services. So you're left with the slog of finding the right incantations for git-send-email (or an MUA you don't need for anything else) to provide the right credentials to an obscure SMTP proxy. And then you have to worry about how well-protected those credentials are, unless you have some sort of keyring or 2FA integration.

> You probably spend a decent amount of time interacting with email, and the investment in setting up a fast, flexible and powerful environment (preferably reusing your text editor for composing messages) for doing so pays for itself soon.

I'm a bit curious, how well do these tools handle HTML email? Webmail services come with WYSIWYG editors that I make liberal use of for formatted text. There's a big overlap between the "email patches are great!" and "HTML email is the worst!" crowds, but I'd be surprised if HTML email is totally anathema to today's MUAs.

Re: Git without a forge

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it cause problems on mobile or something?

Well, no, I've just spent some time recently on wrangling narrow and wide characters in the terminal emulators (and fonts they use) and I guess I am now somewhat more sensitive to the suspiciously looking whitespace. Do you know that, for instance, that the playing card symbols in the Unicode are narrow characters, the terminal emulators treat them so yet the fonts draw them as 1.5-cells wide which causes ugly and an…

Yes, that could be annoying. I'd imagine that you'd want to use only fixed-width fonts in a terminal emulator (where double-widths are ok, but not 1.5). If a fixed-width font has any glyphs other than single- and double-width then that's a problem.

Re: Git without a forge

#143
post #139
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad comparison. People who are critical of others' complaints about creating and/or logging in to a GitHub account like this aren't going through the trouble of creating a GitHub account in 2025 (as opposed to, say, 2015) and are clearly logging in once and staying logged in. I encourage you to try an experiment where you pick three or four (or more) times a day to log out of your HN account and only log back in the…

> Now do the same with GitHub and compare the experience. They've made merely logging in such a massive pain in the ass that somehow goes beyond the anticipated pain around "here's a forced 2FA workflow you didn't ask for but have to run through, anyway". I don't agree, in my opinion it's easier than logging into HN because Github has passwordless auth with passkeys. I don't even have to enter a username, I just clic…

Those passkeys that you and GitHub are talking about require a separate authenticator to use.

> no "forced 2FA workflow"

What does "2FA" stand for?

> it's easier than logging into HN

You have your thumb on the scale (which seems to happen every time someone criticizes GitHub). You have already indicated a willingness/desire to use an authenticator. At that point, there is literally nothing stopping the authenticator from providing the exact same user experience, where instead of releasing your "passkey", it provides your password to HN's login form. And oh wait that's exactly how scores of password managers work, including the ones that are built in to every mainstream browser. (If you're somehow using one that for whatever reason doesn't do that, then it's self-inflicted, which is exactly opposite to the case of the forced 2FA flow that GitHub imposes.)

This is without even mentioning that you have to set all this up.

Re: Git without a forge

#144
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email, like nntp and gopher, lost to the web. People won’t use it if it ain’t on the web. If you force them to use it anyway, very few people will use it. DdV’s advocacy stems from the fact that he is a lone-wolf dev, building tooling for other lone-wolf devs. The social and collaborative features sucking is a feature, not a bug. It falls flat on its face for larger projects and communities.

Noob questions: PRs are public and email patches are receiver's inbox only, right? When I'm assessing the merit of any given project, I'd want see if there's a backlog of PRs, right? Do projects using email-patch workflows set up listservs for receiving patches?

> PRs are public and email patches are receiver's inbox only, right?

Not necessarily. For a 'lone wolf' project that might be the case, but some projects have public mailing-list archives, e.g. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/

I think it would be necessary to do some manual copy+pasting, or else use custom scripts/tooling, to turn such mailing-list archive pages into patch files (for git apply) or mbox files (for git am).

Re: Git without a forge

#145
post #143
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now do the same with GitHub and compare the experience. They've made merely logging in such a massive pain in the ass that somehow goes beyond the anticipated pain around "here's a forced 2FA workflow you didn't ask for but have to run through, anyway". I don't agree, in my opinion it's easier than logging into HN because Github has passwordless auth with passkeys. I don't even have to enter a username, I just clic…

Those passkeys that you and GitHub are talking about require a separate authenticator to use. > no "forced 2FA workflow" What does "2FA" stand for? > it's easier than logging into HN You have your thumb on the scale (which seems to happen every time someone criticizes GitHub). You have already indicated a willingness/desire to use an authenticator. At that point, there is literally nothing stopping the authenticator…

> What does "2FA" stand for?

Two factor authentication, I'm sure you can google it.

> The passkeys that you (and GitHub) are talking about require a separate authenticator to use.

I'm not using anything other than my browser.

> You have already indicated a willingness and desire to use an authenticator

I'm only using my browser, it was 1 click.

> This is all before we even mention that you have to set all this up.

Yeah, once (which doesn't take longer than 15-20s), just like registering on HN, you do it once.

Also as I stated it's my opinion, having a different opinion doesn't make me dishonest

Re: Git without a forge

#146
post #145
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those passkeys that you and GitHub are talking about require a separate authenticator to use. > no "forced 2FA workflow" What does "2FA" stand for? > it's easier than logging into HN You have your thumb on the scale (which seems to happen every time someone criticizes GitHub). You have already indicated a willingness/desire to use an authenticator. At that point, there is literally nothing stopping the authenticator…

> What does "2FA" stand for? Two factor authentication, I'm sure you can google it. > The passkeys that you (and GitHub) are talking about require a separate authenticator to use. I'm not using anything other than my browser. > You have already indicated a willingness and desire to use an authenticator I'm only using my browser, it was 1 click. > This is all before we even mention that you have to set all this up. Ye…

> ["2FA" stands for] Two factor authentication

Great. Now go ahead and try to argue the indefensible position that relying on an authenticator to supply a passkey is somehow not a form of two-factor auth.

> I'm not using anything other than my browser.

... as your authenticator. The fact that you're using your browser and its built-in support for this as your authenticator but are using the term "browser" when you're talking about it instead of the word "authenticator" (GitHub's term—here's their documentation about authenticators, which I'm sure you could have Googled: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/authenticating-wit...>) doesn't change its role.

> (which doesn't take longer than 15-20s)

Aside from the fact that the ~5 seconds that it takes to create an HN account is not even the same as the 15–20 second estimate that you're offering here, there's the minor problem that that estimate is bogus.

You are simply not being honest in your reckoning of the respective costs. Here's GitHub's own documentation for the process of adding a passkey to your account:

https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/authenticating-wit...>

(I'm sure you could have Googled it.)

> as I stated it's my opinion, having a different opinion doesn't make me dishonest

Stating your opinion doesn't make you dishonest, but arguing about things that are matters of fact and not opinions—measurable, quantitative things—and doing it with bad quantities chosen in a dishonest way is, in fact, dishonest.

Here's the Wikipedia article about intellectual dishonesty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty>

I'm sure you could have Googled it.

Re: Git without a forge

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, the classic response is "get a better MUA you luser" Git is distributed and allows you to work efficiently with poor connectivity, having full history available at any time, which is a big accessibility point for people with limited connectivity (and also helps people working while traveling, for example). If you do have any email client, you get all of this as well, plus arbitrarily powerful, low-latenc…

> Try replacing "webmail" by "Notepad" and "client-side MUA" by "emacs/vim" to see how your argument sounds. As it happens, I'm the kind of masochist who uses Sublime Text with no plugins for most of my programming (and literal Notepad for most of my note-taking on Windows), so I find value in letting people stick to their familiar workflow, even if some might see that workflow as somewhere between 'grossly inferior'…

> As it happens, I'm the kind of masochist who uses Sublime Text without any plugins for most of my programming, so I find value in letting people stick to their familiar workflow, even if some might see that workflow as somewhere between 'grossly inferior' and 'literally unusable'.

I definitely think there are upsides to not tweaking your text editor config endlessly, so I understand your point :) What I meant with "vim/emacs" is mostly that sometimes you really want to automate a text editing task, and then it's really convenient to have a programmable text editor. It's also very much a case of [0].

> I'm a bit curious, how well do these tools handle HTML email?

In my case, I use mu4e in emacs to read my mail. Very basic HTML works by default via emacs's native HTML renderer (see, e.g., [1] for old screenshots). That's my preferred solution because I like the keyboard consistency (it's just an emacs buffer) and because there is a command to view the email in an external browser if needed, but it is also possible to render HTML email accurately in emacs by embedding a webkit widget [2]. As for writing, you can write in Org mode format (emacs markdown, if you will) and it gets converted to HTML on send.

[0] https://www.xkcd.com/974/

[1] https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/2015/02/10/eww-now-with-fonts/

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/l60p6a/howto_mu4e_an...

Re: Git without a forge

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, I've just spent some time recently on wrangling narrow and wide characters in the terminal emulators (and fonts they use) and I guess I am now somewhat more sensitive to the suspiciously looking whitespace. Do you know that, for instance, that the playing card symbols in the Unicode are narrow characters, the terminal emulators treat them so yet the fonts draw them as 1.5-cells wide which causes ugly and an…

Yes, that could be annoying. I'd imagine that you'd want to use only fixed-width fonts in a terminal emulator (where double-widths are ok, but not 1.5). If a fixed-width font has any glyphs other than single- and double-width then that's a problem.

Most fixed-width fonts don't have glyphs for all of the Unicode code points, you see, so the terminal emulators use fallback fonts, and it's seems to almost impossible to learn what fonts exactly they use. I believe in my case those 1.5-width glyphs were taken from the DejaVu Sans font (the non-mono version) but it's hard to be certain. In any case, I was quite tilted that I had to go back to using 10♠, K♦ etc. instead of U+1F0AA and U+1F0CE in my TUI-based game.

Re: Git without a forge

#149
post #145
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those passkeys that you and GitHub are talking about require a separate authenticator to use. > no "forced 2FA workflow" What does "2FA" stand for? > it's easier than logging into HN You have your thumb on the scale (which seems to happen every time someone criticizes GitHub). You have already indicated a willingness/desire to use an authenticator. At that point, there is literally nothing stopping the authenticator…

> What does "2FA" stand for? Two factor authentication, I'm sure you can google it. > The passkeys that you (and GitHub) are talking about require a separate authenticator to use. I'm not using anything other than my browser. > You have already indicated a willingness and desire to use an authenticator I'm only using my browser, it was 1 click. > This is all before we even mention that you have to set all this up. Ye…

> Two factor authentication, I'm sure you can google it.

The question was rhetorical, they are showing how a passkey is also a form of 2FA.

Re: Git without a forge

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with the account creation on normal git websites. You fill out three fields and click a link in your email, it's no more complex than git send-email. I'm sure I can figure out the archaic git email system, how hard can it possibly be? Same with the git bundle thing, this is the first time I've read about it but it seems usable. I don't expect anyone I'll ever directly work with to know what the hell a bundle fil…

These deep thoughts would almost be slightly interesting except for a kind of big elephant that you somehow missed: He's not writing about how you should run your project for his convenience.

> He's not writing about how you should run your project for his convenience.

No, but we can discuss and criticize policies all the same, regardless of how the original creator feels about such discourse.

Post reply on HN