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

Go is moving to GitHub

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 244 posts

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#191

Post by codygman »

lxj wrote: post #160
tsmarsh wrote: post #150

I guess its official, misogyny is ok in our industry. Have we forgotten about: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=github+misogyny ? I'm not sure github even experienced a dip in traffic. There are github alternatives, it took me 30 minutes to remove my github subscription and migrate my repos to bitbucket.

Have you assessed Atlassian's culture and concluded its constituents promote gender equality? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649354/Australian-t... Does boycotting Github for the rest of time over a scandal achieve anything? Nonetheless, your post has value in that I'm now thinking about gender equality in technology. Thank you.

> Does boycotting Github for the rest of time over a scandal achieve anything?

Boycotting a business for any reason is VERY effective if it affects their profits enough (aka enough people do it). Whether or not it is the right solution, if enough people boycotted Github publicly for not promoting gender equality enough you better believe they'll change their tune.

The problem is that everyone thinks "enough people won't do it" and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Please don't spread FUD claiming that boycotts don't work. Boycotts which don't garner enough support don't work.

> Have you assessed Atlassian's culture and concluded its constituents promote gender equality?

There is a lot of evidence that Github promotes gender inequality. There is less evidence that Atlassian supports it. Would you rather give a guy who you saw punch his wife in the face $5 or a guy who was rumoured to beat his wife $5?

> Nonetheless, your post has value in that I'm now thinking about gender equality in technology. Thank you.

Awesome! If everyone would put some thought towards it maybe we could come up with the appropriate solutions.

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#192

Post by codygman »

Shizka wrote: post #157
tsmarsh wrote: post #150

I guess its official, misogyny is ok in our industry. Have we forgotten about: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=github+misogyny ? I'm not sure github even experienced a dip in traffic. There are github alternatives, it took me 30 minutes to remove my github subscription and migrate my repos to bitbucket.

I will bite. How does using Github even remotely contribute to accepting misogyny in our industry?

Github promoted misogyny internally. You give them revenue, allowing them to continue to run their business. Ergo, you are promoting the misogyny Github promotes* internally.

* The burden of proof that Github doesn't promote misogyny is on Github.

EDIT: I personally use Github, but I cancelled my account after what happened. For new projects I use bitbucket. I actually feel bad when I'm using Github precisely because to a degree it means I'm promoting misogyny.

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#193

Post by ta1976ta »

Shizka wrote: post #184
ta1976ta wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will bite back. Github's corporate culture appears to be very anti-woman. There is plenty of available evidence to this effect. There is very little apparent diversity (of any sort) in their large team. https://github.com/about/team Using Github contributes to the success of this monoculture and encourages tech leaders to revere and duplicate this model. It makes tech more difficult for people outside of that group…

I can see how you could make it a valid argument like that. Thanks for elaborating. Do you think that not using services from companies with a monoculture is the most effective way of furthering the cause? I'm all for more diversity in the technology and startup sector, but I do believe that the cause should, and eventually will, be solved by dialogue and focus on the issue - not by silently boycutting the companies.…

I can't say if this cause is better solved some other way, but I believe that avoiding Github (not exactly boycotting it) and other big monocultures is the right action for me to take. When I use a service, I give it a piece of my economic power. I don't want to give that to Github.

I do believe a capitalist-based ecosystem can only be healthy with an appropriate level of competition and alternatives for consumers. Github's progress in the market is worrying in the sense that it seems to be driving towards a monopoly.

Github can never be everything to everyone - if there is no meaningful competition, it's guaranteed that some people will be excluded.

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#194

Post by NateDad »

lmm wrote: post #183
NateDad wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a language" means it presumably was not Go, and is therefore irrelevant. All languages are different.

The fact that we can talk about "generics" at all means you're wrong. Any general-purpose programming language has to solve the same set of problems and the ways different languages solve them are often recognizably the same approach. And Go is very, very similar to Java 1.4.

> Go is very, very similar to Java 1.4

Except for multiple return values, easy concurrency, implicit interfaces, real value types, pointers, functions as first class types, closures, no inheritance, no exceptions.... but yeah, other than that, they're totally similar languages.

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#195

Post by kyrra »

nbouscal wrote: post #172
annnnd wrote: post #168

I think these are two separate issues: 1) Go is moving from Google Code to Github 2) Go is moving from Mercurial to Git To echo another user in the thread: "am I the only one who prefers Mercurial to Git?" In my view Mercurial is on par or even superior to Git, but lacks "Linus made it" fame. Too bad... I have used both Mercurial and Git and find hg command line interface much more intuitive to use. As for GUIs, ther…

I get the impression that people who prefer Mercurial to Git only ever talk about interfaces and not about the underlying model. It seems to me that especially for a tool as important as version control, the underlying model is significantly more important: you can wrap a mediocre interface in a nice one, but if the model isn't very good you're pretty much stuck. That isn't to say that Mercurial's model is bad per se…

Not sure if it's better or not, but Mercurial has a concept called the RevLog[0]. A basic overview of it is here[1]. It sounds like the revlog format can become corrupted from time-to-time, but it's pretty rare now adays.

[0] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RevlogNG

[1] http://ericsink.com/vcbe/html/repository_structure.html

EDIT: another blog explaining revlog format: http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2014/02/05/the-mercurial-revlog...

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#196

Post by skj »

coldtea wrote: post #170
mholt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is Google quietly admitting that Google Code is all but dead. Well, I doubt that Google Code engineers or project managers had much, if anything, to do with the decision to move the Go project.

That they didn't have a say in this matter though, speaks volumes...

It would if the whole idea wasn't based on an assumption with no evidence.

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#197

Post by skj »

Spitfire777 wrote: post #173

Hi Go team, if you want an alternative for Gerrit code review, you can also use http://review.ninja . It's also open source, so you are welcome to contribute. Cheers, Mitch

Took a brief look at the front page.

- No side-by-side diffs? Didn't see any in screen shots.

- The scopes asked for seem very broad. I may be confused, but it seemed like it was asking for write access to all repositories, public and private. I have access to several private repos (but I don't own them) for which this is unacceptable. If the scope is limited to the ones under github.com/me then it's not as big a deal... In any case, the scary scope list prevented me from experimenting.

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#198

Post by DannyBee »

Stratoscope wrote: post #114
DannyBee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Code was created mainly to combat the monoculture of Sourceforge, which was slowly growing crappier. Google wanted to create a place open source people actually wanted to be, and had reliable hosting, instead of a place people had to sadly live with that was pretty unreliable (no offense meant to my friends at sourceforge). Doing so jump started some competition in this space. While github is slowly becoming a…

Hi Dan! Remember when I DDOSed Google Code on Super Tuesday 2008, when I thought it would be a good idea to host my election map result tiles there, and then I forgot to turn off the cachebuster in my tile URLs? Good times... :-)

I remember We actually served election data ourselves there for a bit, but not with cache busting :)

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#199

Post by pridkett »

Spitfire777 wrote: post #173

Hi Go team, if you want an alternative for Gerrit code review, you can also use http://review.ninja . It's also open source, so you are welcome to contribute. Cheers, Mitch

Review Ninja is beautiful, but at it's core, it's just slightly more nice stuff on top of pull requests. It can't address the issues such as being able to edit someone else's pull request as part of a code review, can it?

Re: Go is moving to GitHub

#200

Post by rkangel »

nbouscal wrote: post #172
annnnd wrote: post #168

I think these are two separate issues: 1) Go is moving from Google Code to Github 2) Go is moving from Mercurial to Git To echo another user in the thread: "am I the only one who prefers Mercurial to Git?" In my view Mercurial is on par or even superior to Git, but lacks "Linus made it" fame. Too bad... I have used both Mercurial and Git and find hg command line interface much more intuitive to use. As for GUIs, ther…

I get the impression that people who prefer Mercurial to Git only ever talk about interfaces and not about the underlying model. It seems to me that especially for a tool as important as version control, the underlying model is significantly more important: you can wrap a mediocre interface in a nice one, but if the model isn't very good you're pretty much stuck. That isn't to say that Mercurial's model is bad per se…

The underlying model is really not that different. There are some details that give rise to implementation differences, but Git and Mercurial have converged on a very similar approach.

The reason that arguments about Git vs Mercurial tend to focus on the interface is because it's the only thing that's really different. You can do all the same thing with both tools.

There are a couple of actual real differences: Mercurial's extension capability. Mercurial's named branch capability.

How important they are is a matter of opinion. I find it interesting that Mercurial was hitorically missing some Git features, but they've all been added as extensions (shipped with the core Mercurial distro generally). That's not really something that's so do-able with Git.

Post reply on HN