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

Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 952 posts

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#491

Post by noname120 »

joelreymont wrote: post #369
quirino wrote: post #35

> As a bonus, we look forward to fewer violations (exhibit A, B, C) of our strict no LLM / no AI policy, Hilarious how the offender on "exhibit A" [1] is the same one from the other post that made the frontpage a couple of days ago [2]. [1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/25974 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274

That one was poorly documented and may have been related to an issue in my code. I would offer this one instead. https://github.com/joelreymont/zig/pull/1

Can you stop wasting everyone’s time?

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#492

Post by miki123211 »

bayesnet wrote: post #72
miki123211 wrote: post #61

PSA: Codeberg currently does not implement accessible account registration. It is impossible for screen reader users to make a Codeberg account due to the image-only captcha. There's a manual fallback path, but no idea how long that takes. I've been forced to use the Wikimedia one, and that was about 3 months. This has been pointed out to them many times, and it's seemingly not something they're willing to fix. If yo…

It greatly saddens me to see how little concern there is for accessibility for dev tooling. It says something about our industry that accessibility is often viewed as a “luxury” feature that can be dealt with once you’ve reached some level of success or revenue or whatever. I’m hopeful AI tools can improve qol for those who require screen readers and similar tools but have a sinking feeling that it will only transfer…

> It greatly saddens me to see how little concern there is for accessibility for dev tooling.

This really depends on company size, and the company in question.

Everything Microsoft does in this space is excellent, VS Code almost feels like an app specifically designed for the blind at times. Other large companies aren't as good, but their products are usually somewhat usable.

Startups are a mixed bag, Zed is notoriously and completely inaccessible for example. Most SaaS tools wouldn't pass an audit but can be used with significant annoyances.

Open Source is usually pretty bad. GTK still doesn't do any accessibility on non-Linux platforms. QT used to be completely inaccessible, although they've significantly improved in the last couple years. Linux in general has major issues that makes it almost unusable unless you understand it at a very deep level, and maybe not even then.

Accessibility isn't a sexy thing to do, so unless you're practicing manager-driven development, nobody wants to work on it.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#493

Post by ACCount37 »

mlugg wrote: post #59
jamesnorden wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's technically a way[1], but you'd have to do it every 6 months which is not great. https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-a...

Yeah, that's actually what we've done on the Zig GitHub repository. However, it doesn't stop pushes to existing PRs, which isn't ideal; and, yes, it's quite hard to escape the conclusion that there being no "until I turn it back on" option is intentional.

It's completely intentional, and goes back to when GitHub was founded. GitHub was intended as a collaborative software development platform, not "look but don't touch".

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#494

Post by antirez »

Wow. I think that's a serious mistake. Maybe GitHub is no longer so great and snappy but nowhere to justify moving something that needs: 1. Money, 2. Exposition, to something obscure just because it's a bit better. It's Git with an UI anyway, there isn't such large difference. I don't care about the fact the post is harsh: it's the content that it is broken from my POV because. It is absolutely legit to do something like that, in theory, but when you are handling a project that - at this point - is also the chosen language of a non trivial amount of folks, you need to act not just following what you like, but what is better for the project in the long time, and it is very hard to see how going away from GitHub (the fucking big market of open source software in the main city plaza -- let's use the same post tones) is better for Zig. What I think it is better is, of course, not absolutely better, but let's zoom on this issue root cause. It is the classical developer intolerance for tool that are not "as they wish/think", which is very common among technical people, but is a POV, I mean this "tool oriented" workflow, where this little feature/customization matters so much in your life (instead of adapting a bit and do not care), that I believe is a problem in our industry, and also has effects on the design philosophy of many programmers, that are too details oriented. Coders spend the majority of their life in the terminal, not on in GitHub. To check issues / PR there is not this Stranger Things Upside Down nightmare.

Another problem with that is that you know what you are leaving, but you don't really know what you find in the new place. GitHub used to go down often in the early days. Now they may not be snappy and unfortunately like 99% of the web felt for this Javascript framework craziness. But the site is always up, I bet has disaster recovery and serious backup policy, and so forth. Can you find this so obviously in other smaller places?

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#495

Post by noname120 »

mlugg wrote: post #59
jamesnorden wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's technically a way[1], but you'd have to do it every 6 months which is not great. https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-a...

Yeah, that's actually what we've done on the Zig GitHub repository. However, it doesn't stop pushes to existing PRs, which isn't ideal; and, yes, it's quite hard to escape the conclusion that there being no "until I turn it back on" option is intentional.

You can close them and limit discussion to contributors I guess? Not ideal but at least they wouldn’t appear in the pull requests tab.

Alternatively you can use a bot or a GitHub Action to automatically change the description and title of the pull request to something like “[PRs are not allowed and deleted automatically]”. But yeah not a perfect solution either…

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#496

Post by noname120 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #493
mlugg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's actually what we've done on the Zig GitHub repository. However, it doesn't stop pushes to existing PRs, which isn't ideal; and, yes, it's quite hard to escape the conclusion that there being no "until I turn it back on" option is intentional.

It's completely intentional, and goes back to when GitHub was founded. GitHub was intended as a collaborative software development platform, not "look but don't touch".

I suppose you can fork a repository if you want to collaborate with others though. Reviewing pull requests and engaging with a community is a lot of work and has possible legal ramifications; in many cases it’s faster to just do things yourself. Some teams/companies deliberately refuse outside contributions for this reason.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#498

Post by patates »

Veserv wrote: post #274
patates wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could try to explain that most jobs are way more nuanced than just 'failing and deserving to be called a monkey' or 'not failing.' Or, I could just call you names for not seeing that, you could call me names back, and we can keep doing this forever.

Your argument is lacking nuance, declaring that the criticism being levied here must be a simple binary. The specific error they are criticizing is extremely egregious, akin to builder declaring a house without a roof complete. “failing and deserving to be called a monkey” is a criticism being levied against a 0/100 level mistake, not a mere minor mistake as you are claiming. While it might be desirable to use less c…

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

> Your argument is lacking nuance, declaring that the criticism being levied here must be a simple binary.

That isn't my argument. I am arguing against the idea that there is an "objective" threshold of failure where, once crossed, it becomes acceptable to call people names.

> Customers of Github should be infuriated that Github gleefully foists such utterly defective software upon them. It is hard to get that across in dispassionate writing.

See, while it has its bugs, I don't see a major problem with GitHub as a software product (setting aside the monopoly concerns). I encourage passionate discussion, but calling people names doesn't communicate passion; it communicates impatience. It suggests you don't have the patience to actually make a case for something you're supposedly passionate about, so you're choosing a shorter, more aggressive form instead.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#499

Post by noodletheworld »

nromiun wrote: post #463
noodletheworld wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on. Micros$$$$ft owns github. We don't need to give some pretend sympathy. When you can afford to have good things, and you're not, don't come crying about getting called bad names. Actions is bad. > I dare anyone who is delusional enough to think they can create something better to actually make something better Actions speak louder than words. Zig is leaving because of the issues they mentioned. > People tr…

So who is complaining that Zig leaving GH is somehow a problem? I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors. Zig is leaving GH for another provider. They did not make a better GH and fixed all the problems with it. You literally have to fill out a form to convince Codeberg that you need CI. I would take GH CI over that.

> I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors

These aren't false claims.

Thats my point.

Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.

Yes, its better than having nothing, but honestly you have to be wearing blinkers not to see the decline rn.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#500

Post by testdelacc1 »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #478
testdelacc1 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God this entire thread is just people defending him as “a breath of fresh air” and “just using human language”. There is something in people that makes them enjoy seeing others belittled like this. A complete lack of empathy, because no one would like to be treated this way themselves, but are perfectly happy seeing others treated this way. One commenter justifies it by saying “if I’m fucking up, it’s ok to speak to…

> A complete lack of empathy... ...for one of the largest of most toxic IT companies in the history if IT? Spare me, please. Microsoft is the last legal entity in the universe you should feel empathy for.

He’s talking about people who wrote the code. Those are actual people. You’ve abstracted them away as “Microsoft” and decided they don’t deserve any empathy.
Post reply on HN