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

Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 255 posts

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#161

Post by blocked_again »

rrix2 wrote: post #159
blocked_again wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky for us GitHub unlike Facebook don't rely on selling advertisments to make revenue. Plus git is decentralised. You can migrate your entire code anywhere you want. As far as issues are concerned I am pretty sure competitors like GitLab supports exporting them via GitHubs awesome API. It's not as bad as make you sound it. Things could have been much more worse.

I can migrate my code, but not all my consumers which use "github.com/my/package" as the import qualifiers all over the place.

Doesn't setting up a mirror solve the issue ? https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-github-mirrors

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#162

Post by colbyrussell »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #157
colbyrussell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't push to origin unless it's your own project or your team's. We're talking about PR-based workflows. > Adding a remote is generally a one-time cost It's not a constant cost, unless you're saying you only ever intend to contribute to one project ever. It's a fixed cost that you will pay N times, where N is the number of projects you contribute to.

You do push to origin in a PR-based workflow. The origin you push to is your fork of the project. Fork, push, pull request.

I'm going to try to make this as straightforward as possible: Where in this[1] comment does an error lie? Please make a copy and edit it to reflect what you're saying here and then show me the result.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19779664

I'm going to skip ahead here. You're going to replace the `add unnecessary-third-fork` command with `set-url origin $THIRDFORK`. Either that, or you swap for a `git clone $THIRDFORK` so "origin" is set as a result of the clone.

How many steps do you need to eliminate before you can match the cost first sequence (2 steps)? How many steps does your advice eliminate? What are the total number of steps involved in the GitHub approach? I'll wait for your answer this time.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#163

Post by colbyrussell »

SEJeff wrote: post #118
colbyrussell wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

You can create a pr with the open source "hub" tool with a single command.

I only counted opening a pull request as a single operation to begin with.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#164

Post by jordigh »

ebg13 wrote: post #145
jordigh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of cynical about this sort of thing and I don't think the hosting really changes the quality of contributions. The amount, maybe, but you get a lot of crappy drive-bys that are about one particular but very enthusiastic person's pet peeves, which probably don't affect the wider userbase. The drive-bys require a lot of work to integrate for relatively little profit. Mediagoblin is dying not so much because it…

> basically there are other things that got ActivityPub before it and could replace it (Pixelfed, Mastodon, Write Freely). Nobody really wants to work on Mediagoblin now because the alternatives are pretty much all better. Uh, maybe, except that none of the things you list actually do anything close to the core promise of MediaGoblin. MediaGoblin was going to be the libre Flickr/YouTube replacer. Nothing focusing on…

Peertube for YouTube, Pixelfed for Flickr.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#165

Post by colbyrussell »

diminoten wrote: post #152
dllthomas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a direct consequence of anything that was said. It's a possible implication - in the conversational sense of implication, not the logical sense - but those get to be disclaimed.

His stance is literally that using a GUI is harder. That isn't a consequence, it's his core position.

It's literally not my stance. And I've literally said that it's not my stance—in a comment (that should have never been necessary to begin with) meant to remove all doubt. And you know this.

To continue saying otherwise (explicitly, even) is a case of outright intellectual dishonesty.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#166

Post by jlokier »

craigsmansion wrote: post #110
jlokier wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it matter that GitHub themselves is not open source? That's for Apache to decide, but consider: Git itself was written, by Linus Torvalds, because Linux (the kernel) was using non-open source version control at the time called BitKeeper, and the non-open source nature of it was causing increasing problems in the Linux developer community, both ideological and eventually practical problems too, caused by the li…

"Ideological and eventual practical problems too" is way too general. The very specific flash-point was Linus throwing an unjustified hissy-fit defending Larry McVoy of BitKeeper being difficult about Andrew Tridgel (Tridge of Samba fame) "reverse engineering" the data traffic of Bitkeeper for inter-operability (really just sniffing client packets with wireshark or something). Whether the name "git" pertains to Tridg…

There were more people having problems than Tridge.

I was there, and I was told in private mail by the author of BitKeeper that I did not have permission to use it, because of my work on respository analysis software that looked like it would get too close for comfort.

That's without any reverse engineering. I never used BitKeeper, or connected to the server, or read the infamous "help" text.

It meant I couldn't participate in kernel development in the same way as most folks.

I wasn't the only one, and that's what I mean by practical problems, not just ideological.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#167

Post by pedrocx486 »

saurik wrote: post #122

Apparently, one of the big motivating reasons for this was "cost". > The foundation’s 2018 five-year strategic plan noted that infrastructure services account for more than 80 percent of the total ASF expense budget, adding: “Increasingly, project communities have infrastructure requirements that strain the capabilities of the ASF.” > The report noted that, given burgeoning costs, encouraging the use of more external…

>as disappointed as I am with this decision

May I ask why? Them moving doesn't look like an issue to me at least.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#168

Post by jlokier »

j16sdiz wrote: post #130
robaato wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the comment meant that git took ideas from Mercurial rather than BK taking ideas from Mercurial.

Git start before mercurial.

You're right.

They were both released extremely close together, and I don't remember why I associate Mercurial ideas as being something Git learned from. Maybe I'm wrong about it.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#169

Post by GordonS »

diehunde wrote: post #143
GordonS wrote: post #117

For many years now, it's felt like Apache software foundation is where projects go to die. It's a shame its taken so long, but I'm glad to see this news - it's pretty much guaranteed to increase participation in Apache projects.

What do you mean to die? Projects like Kafka, Airflow and Spark are widely used today and the teams are constantly releasing new features.

Apache has a few big hitters, yes, but for dozens more it's been more akin to a tomb than an incubator. I really believe a large part of the reason for that has been their dogged determination to stay off GitHub.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#170

Post by kelnos »

colbyrussell wrote: post #77
pas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess gitlab is the same. The important flow is that there's a very easy way to fork and send a pull/merge request.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

In the "easy" path, you're neglecting the lack of standardization in the "attach/upload" step. For some projects it might be as simple as "create an account on their bug tracker and open a new bug and attach the patch", but for others it might be "dig through their website to find a mailing list, dig more to figure out how to subscribe to that mailing list, send email". and then you might: "get a bounce because the patch is too large", or have to "repost because your mailer posted the patch in-line instead of an attachment, which corrupted it", or...

As much as I hate centralization, especially when the central entity is a for-profit corporation running closed software, often that ends up giving you a standardized experience that makes things easier. "Easier" doesn't have to mean fewer steps; I agree that the GitHub workflow you describe isn't simpler, but if you've done it a few times, it's mechanical and you don't need to think about it. GH even provides a command-line tool[0] that lets you avoid most of the click-around-on-website steps.

[0] https://github.com/github/hub

Post reply on HN