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

Google has quietly launched a GitHub competitor

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: Google has quietly launched a GitHub competitor

#63

Post by blhack »

shrineOfLies wrote: post #50
geofft wrote: post #26

The reason people use GitHub is everything around the git hosting: the web interface, the account system, pull requests and issues, forking, comments, wikis, Pages, even the desktop and mobile apps. Hosting git repositories is straightforward, by design. This article is only slightly more sensible than claiming that S3 is a GitHub competitor because you can git clone over HTTP.

Lately, the Web UI has been sucky, I relied on my username button quite a bit, now I have to perform two steps to go to my user page

Is that what just changed? I swear it felt like I had to go searching for my repos yesterday when I was looking for something.

Re: Google has quietly launched a GitHub competitor

#64

Post by kodablah »

halayli wrote: post #56
guelo wrote: post #18

My team has just started looking for a github replacement because the code review workflow is just not working for us, we need something with more structure. I think there's plenty of space for feature and price competition, especially for private repos where github's social network effects don't matter as much.

check out stash by atlassian https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash

In my experience Stash is not much better. It has simple commenting on diffs, but we had to have a plugin to automatically "unapprove" everyone once a new commit was added to a PR. It's social aspects are no better than GitHub code comments either.

I always found Crucible much nicer and it integrates w/ Stash decently, but I worry it and Fisheye are on the backburner at Atlassian.

Re: Google has quietly launched a GitHub competitor

#66

Post by k-mcgrady »

shrineOfLies wrote: post #50
geofft wrote: post #26

The reason people use GitHub is everything around the git hosting: the web interface, the account system, pull requests and issues, forking, comments, wikis, Pages, even the desktop and mobile apps. Hosting git repositories is straightforward, by design. This article is only slightly more sensible than claiming that S3 is a GitHub competitor because you can git clone over HTTP.

Lately, the Web UI has been sucky, I relied on my username button quite a bit, now I have to perform two steps to go to my user page

Just went on Github and I can't believe they remove that button. Doesn't seem like anything is gained from it and I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses it daily. I really hope they reverse that change.

Re: Google has quietly launched a GitHub competitor

#68

Post by Scarblac »

mikekchar wrote: post #60
shrineOfLies wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lately, the Web UI has been sucky, I relied on my username button quite a bit, now I have to perform two steps to go to my user page

To be honest, I think it has always been sucky in many ways. They change it quite frequently, but it doesn't actually seem to be changes that improve the UI. It only makes it frustratingly different than before. I often wonder if the projects my team works on ends up that way. We A/B test a lot of changes and often find that it makes absolutely no difference in conversion. In the end we often don't change things that…

Exactly this, it always sucks and it changes too often in completely random ways.

Github's issue tracker is also very half baked, every real project has to has a Trac instance or so somewhere else.

But _it has critical mass_, and pull requests and the way commenting them and testing them etc works is really awesome, and it'll be hard for a new competitor to get people to move.

Re: Google has quietly launched a GitHub competitor

#69

Post by nulltype »

Scarblac wrote: post #68
mikekchar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I think it has always been sucky in many ways. They change it quite frequently, but it doesn't actually seem to be changes that improve the UI. It only makes it frustratingly different than before. I often wonder if the projects my team works on ends up that way. We A/B test a lot of changes and often find that it makes absolutely no difference in conversion. In the end we often don't change things that…

Exactly this, it always sucks and it changes too often in completely random ways. Github's issue tracker is also very half baked, every real project has to has a Trac instance or so somewhere else. But _it has critical mass_, and pull requests and the way commenting them and testing them etc works is really awesome, and it'll be hard for a new competitor to get people to move.

That seems true, but only for open source projects. Why would it be hard for closed source projects (where github makes all their money) to move away?
Post reply on HN