How about making Github-Current actually have a good code review UX?
GitHub’s code review UX is the reason a lot of us use it (or were sold on it at least.)
GitHub-Next
101–110 of 119 posts
Re: GitHub-Next
#102Could they use the blurb of text at the top to give me like... a noun to describe what this is? It just says some vagueness about the future and investigating and exploring. Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work? Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
Hi there! That's good feedback, and we updated the thing to make it clearer. Thank you!
Re: GitHub-Next
#103Regarding visualization of codebases, something I've wanted for a long time is a graph of function calls across an entire project. I want to know all the callers and callees of every function. This shouldn't be too hard, we already have find references via LSP. Turning this into a graph would make it significantly easier to manage the entry and exit points of a code base and inform architecture decisions, refactors,…
Doxygen has the ability to generate these with its CALL_GRAPH/CALLER_GRAPH config, at least from each function individually. It can look quite funny when the depth isn't limited: https://i.imgur.com/3LMV71N.png
Re: GitHub-Next
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except every attorney that has taken a look disagrees with you. So it is complex and unless you have any standing or new data I think it's safe to dismiss your entire argument. https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-th... https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c... https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...
Lawyers don't judge cases, judges do. Until then all you have is opinions, mine is pretty straightforward: if the generative model can be made to work without first training it on other people's code then it isn't copyright infringement, if not then it is transforming one set of works into another. The only thing that might let GitHub off the hook is their terms of service, but that might mean mass exodus from GitHub…
Unless you have specialized training in copyright law, your opinion is unfortunately invalid when compared to actual experts in the field. You're making assertions that you clearly cannot substantiate coupled with the fact that we're not seeing an influx of litigants. Personally, I'm yet to see any news of even a single litigant challenging copilot. Also, the outcome of cases in the US are in many cases decided by a jury, not a judge.
Re: GitHub-Next
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers don't judge cases, judges do. Until then all you have is opinions, mine is pretty straightforward: if the generative model can be made to work without first training it on other people's code then it isn't copyright infringement, if not then it is transforming one set of works into another. The only thing that might let GitHub off the hook is their terms of service, but that might mean mass exodus from GitHub…
Unless you have specialized training in copyright law, your opinion is unfortunately invalid when compared to actual experts in the field. You're making assertions that you clearly cannot substantiate coupled with the fact that we're not seeing an influx of litigants. Personally, I'm yet to see any news of even a single litigant challenging copilot. Also, the outcome of cases in the US are in many cases decided by a…
I've fielded a couple of copyright lawsuits and won them, obviously the lawyers of the defendants thought they had an excellent case. I may not be a lawyer but I do know a thing or two about copyright law and as far as I'm concerned if you claim that you have created something because you took someone else's copyrighted content and pushed it through a machine of sorts that does not create an original work. There is plenty of settled caselaw around this. So that much we can establish off the bat. Which means if you use this to create your own copyrighted work you may have a problem anyway. Whether or not it is infringing or not is largely a matter of the length of the segment produced and whether or not it matches the original in some non-trivial way. The mechanism in the middle doesn't really matter.
If Microsoft/GitHub want to field the argument that they own the rights to all of the code uploaded to GitHub then I'm perfectly fine with that, the only problem I see with that defense is that it will likely kill GitHub overnight.
As for the jury argument: that's fine, but juries aren't lawyers either. I'm not sure if that should weigh as a positive or a negative for Microsoft.
Finally, regardless of the legality: there is such a thing as ethics and in my book you don't appropriate a large body of work from a whole community without so much as a by-your-leave. There have been other threads on HN regarding this and it is interesting to see the various opinions, even so if Copilot is challenged legally than I'll be cheering on the party bringing the suit.
Re: GitHub-Next
#106Regarding visualization of codebases, something I've wanted for a long time is a graph of function calls across an entire project. I want to know all the callers and callees of every function. This shouldn't be too hard, we already have find references via LSP. Turning this into a graph would make it significantly easier to manage the entry and exit points of a code base and inform architecture decisions, refactors,…
It's coming at it from the wrong end, but I do a lot of this with kcachegrind, particularly for tracking down hot paths in Ruby, which is so dynamic that static analysis of nigh impossible. At least for the purposes of checking hot paths, it's quite useful.
Re: GitHub-Next
#107Could they use the blurb of text at the top to give me like... a noun to describe what this is? It just says some vagueness about the future and investigating and exploring. Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work? Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
Did they add this in the last 40 mins? I'm seeing a pretty good description: " GitHub Next investigates the future of software development. We explore things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and technologies that will change our craft. New approaches to building healthy, productive software engineering teams. "
It is? It reads like meaningless marketingspeak to me. It doesn't actually say what GitHub-Next is.
I've read the whole page and I'm not sure what it is. I suspect it's a think tank, but I'm not certain.
Re: GitHub-Next
#108How about making Github-Current actually have a good code review UX?
We're thinking about review experiences! We're developers too, and we're keenly interested in how to make code more reviewable, how to help developers _make_ code more reviewable, and alternative interfaces to the notion of changesets.
Re: GitHub-Next
#109Could they use the blurb of text at the top to give me like... a noun to describe what this is? It just says some vagueness about the future and investigating and exploring. Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work? Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
And I was expecting something new. But none of what they are showing are new or "Next".
This is slightly worrying if this is the direction Github are heading.
Re: GitHub-Next
#110Could they use the blurb of text at the top to give me like... a noun to describe what this is? It just says some vagueness about the future and investigating and exploring. Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work? Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
It's a sexy name by some middle manager somewhere, or some executive3 that got a good idea while taking a morning duce, to come up with an exciting new project that will juice their resume and hopefully get them promoted before it comes to the front that they do nothing and their objectives are entirely fluff. It's an old trick first called out in The Dilbert Principle that you get promoted by being associated with s…
great job though, if you can get it