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

Bidding farewell to Google Code

google-opensource.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 428 posts

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#381

Post by userbinator »

chernevik wrote: post #361
k3n wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google hates anything that requires a human's touch, and per the article: > Lately, the administrative load has consisted almost exclusively of abuse management. They see Google Code as a time-sink, and they're probably right, and it's not surprising to me that they'd drop something that is no longer serving it's intended purpose, but instead has negative implications for their model. Keeping it going forward would r…

But the parent comment gave a very plausible suggestion for how Google can do this in a very low maintenance way. Yes, there is abuse management, but now that they're read-only I'd expect this to fall off pretty fast. Google's first business is access to information about links. You'd think they would be more careful about propagating link rot. Unless they _want_ link rot, as they're much better positioned to handle…

Unless they _want_ link rot, as they're much better positioned to handle changes in links than any search engine entrant?

That does make sense - the more people who stumble upon broken links an choose to use them to find information, the more traffic they get and can earn from ads with. Remember their experiments with Chrome hiding the URL(!) last year?

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#382

Post by sk5t »

wiseleo wrote: post #358
cdibona wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are planing on taking the majority of these legitimate, open source, 'abandonded' projects and putting them up in cold storage in a git repo on googlesource.com

Will it keep existing deep links published in books and research papers from breaking? What prevents Google from setting the whole site into read-only mode as-is? Keep it working as it does now and disable changes.

Was that a rhetorical question--how could any third party possibly prevent deep links from breaking?

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#383

Post by oaktowner »

cdibona wrote: post #242
wldcordeiro wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had my hopes up that you guys would update Google Code to be more of a contender with GAE and Compute integration.

I have a secret desire to reuse the code domain in this manner.

Well...it was a secret.

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#384

Post by tjdetwiler »

The email I received made me look at some long lost repositories of mine that I did while learning in school. It's always fun to be able to look back on work you did when you were less experienced.

It's unfortunate how transient the internet can be. How much information is created and lost over such a short period of time.

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#385

Post by AnAccountNow »

Someone1234 wrote: post #149
rossj wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, until code.google.com no longer resolves, at which point it won't help :( Would be nice if they used that info to automatically redirect to the new site.

They also should be returning a 301 and the new URL so crawlers can follow it and delete the old site from their records...

Why would they make it easier for someone else to properly index the web? They've got that covered.

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#386

Post by stuaxo »

Just going to join the people asking that you speak to archive.org to get these old projects hosted.

Sure I can move my own old projects, but there is plenty of stuff out there that will be lost.

Part of what makes modern coding efficient is being able to not just look up working libraries but also to find old solutions to similar problems.

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#387

Post by lotu »

baggachipz wrote: post #110
pbreit wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why limited to google? You can't count on anything being around forever. But that is hardly revelatory.

I think people tend to hold large companies with far-reaching services to a higher standard in this regard. I'm not arguing that stance's validity, but if MS or Google or even Facebook (yes, I know) release a product or API, people assume that it will be well supported. Partly because of $large_company's deep pockets, and partially because it's assumed that those companies understand the far-reaching consequences of…

> partially because it's assumed that those companies understand the far-reaching consequences of their actions

The large companies are made of small clueless people just like every other company on the face of the Earth.

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#389

Post by cluenerf »

sytse wrote: post #316
sachinag wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey look! You get to put "I heartily recommend people look at Gitlab - Chris DiBona, Google" on your homepage. That you haven't yet is mindboggling.

Totally agree. And even better, we put your quote about Chris his quote on there together with you HN profile :) See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/7eb4ced6... and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/b9342fd5... (if you'll get in trouble for this please say so here or via sytse@gitlab.com and I'll remove it ASAP)

Wow dude, not only is using someone's quote on your website without consent pretty unclassy, using their employer to add legitimacy and make it seem like they're speaking on behalf of the company is just not ok at all.

Re: Bidding farewell to Google Code

#390

Post by amiraliakbari »

cdibona wrote: post #150
shubhamjain wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true that no one uses Google Code. Every now and then, I bump into some obscure but a little useful project being hosted on Google Code. Maybe, makers of those projects have grown out of them and don't wish to put any more effort but still, there is a bit of value, I am able to derive from them. What will happen, if those projects are not migrated because their developers have simply forgotten about them?

We are planing on taking the majority of these legitimate, open source, 'abandonded' projects and putting them up in cold storage in a git repo on googlesource.com

I suggest letting developers to specify projects they find useful to be included in this cold storage.
Post reply on HN