41–50 of 87 posts
Why do great websites always feel compelled to redesign? Digg, Stumbleupon, Facebook etc. It is very unsettling. The equivalent of someone coming into you home when you're not there and changing the entire floorplan, then expecting you to be elated when you come back at night, instead of confused and disoriented when all of the cupboards seem larger than they appear.
Check your dashboard/News Feed. Also featuring a new design right now.
...how about some privacy controls? I'd really prefer not to advertise which users and projects I'm following or starring. Now I have Facebook trying to own and broadcast my personal life and GitHub trying to own and broadcast my professional one. Ugh.
It looks very nice, but there's a couple of things that bug me: - Now "owning" a repo seems even more important. Regularly commit to someone else's repo? Not evident unless you go digging for it. - The timeline bar-graph used to show blue for your own commits and grey for other people's. Now it either looks like you did all the work (your own repo), or someone else did it (forked repos). Even if these two don't matte…
They've also removed the "traffic" graph, that showed you how many people have viewed your project over the last 90 days or so (I can't remember the exact amount). That was a very useful way to gauge interest. Honestly, IMO, GitHub has been getting worse, not better, since the spring. I have no idea why, but they're taking away features -- perhaps to speed up the site? Anyway, I don't get it. They dropped their "soci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm seeing forks just as prominently as "owned" repos, so I don't see the problem.
If you fork a repo and then issue a pull request, you 'own' the forked version, but the original still doesn't show up. This breaks for the traditional git workflow, which doesn't revolve around the 'forking' step. In other words, if I commit regularly to another person's repository, even if I don't have a (public) 'forked' version, those commits should still show up regardless.
it's not a great solution but hack away till Preston-Warner gets the feedback I say - if there is a readme on profile I might try it
Check your dashboard/News Feed. Also featuring a new design right now.
And it's awful. I used to be able to see the description about a repository someone I follow had starred, and it was easily my best way to find out about interesting projects. Now, all you see is username/repositoryname, which is damn near useless. They replaced actual content with...whitespace. I don't know how they screwed this one up so badly, but they need to change it back to being socially useful again, and pro…
I am not crazy about the new design. It actually feels less designed to me. Particularly I don't like that the activity is now hidden on profile pages. I often like to look at people's activity, and it bothers me that it is an extra click away every time now. I miss the blue to distinguish your own commits from commits by other users. Information that used to be available right on top such as organizations, and peopl…
It actually feels less designed to me. Some would say that less design is a good thing, for the same reasons less code is a good thing.
I agree the loss of who works on what is poor - but it's always been hard to tell mine vs yours - I am a bit annoyed but on mature reflection I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and see them iterate out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've also removed the "traffic" graph, that showed you how many people have viewed your project over the last 90 days or so (I can't remember the exact amount). That was a very useful way to gauge interest. Honestly, IMO, GitHub has been getting worse, not better, since the spring. I have no idea why, but they're taking away features -- perhaps to speed up the site? Anyway, I don't get it. They dropped their "soci…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've also removed the "traffic" graph, that showed you how many people have viewed your project over the last 90 days or so (I can't remember the exact amount). That was a very useful way to gauge interest. Honestly, IMO, GitHub has been getting worse, not better, since the spring. I have no idea why, but they're taking away features -- perhaps to speed up the site? Anyway, I don't get it. They dropped their "soci…
Yeah, the removal of the graph sucks. Call me silly, but I really liked that graph .. it gave me a little boost of pride to bring up my github page and see the effect of a burst of hacking activity in visual form. Obviously the info's still around in the commit logs, but it seemed much more obvious in the graph. I guess computing the graph did probably consume CPU time, but isn't that exactly the sort of thing that d…
Both the profile and the dashboard now show less information than they used to. The icons are a nice touch but totally irrelevant, and are not effective on a quick glance.
Meanwhile, the streams constantly show redundant information: e.g. 10 successive commits+push or wiki edits on the same project (happens all the time in my feeds) consume 10 distinct rows - why not collapse them together?
The launch bar was actually a cool idea, but it's more of a hack than a useful tool. And pray tell me what good does the /launch page do? Why should I ever use it as a landing page?
And don't get me started on the push performance, which is abysmal and feels like it has constantly been degrading over time.
I'll say it again, I <3 github, and they're a truly awesome team. But for the past several months every single change they've made was a big "wow, new X, let's take a look" followed by a sad, soft "meh".