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

Before GitHub

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 255 posts

Re: Before GitHub

#201

Post by theptip »

alastairp wrote: post #25

> What GitHub Gave Us To me one of the clear things that GitHub gave us was a structure around a person rather than a project. To me it felt liberating to quickly create a repository attached to my name than it was to go through the (what felt to me) very serious process of coming up with a project name and reserving it on sourceforge just to get a cvs or svn repository (along with website, mailing lists, issue track…

I enjoy speculating on what could come from revisiting the first principles with our new tech stack.

The Fediverse makes it much easier to broadcast updates in a truly decentralized fashion. Maybe this can be the discovery layer instead of requiring a centralized social network in GitHub?

Git itself has many of the primitives needed, but issue tracking and CI/CD seem the main pieces still lacking. Seems likely that issues can be solved satisfactorily both natively in git, or in the fediverse. I bet that agents can pass branches/patches amongst themselves just fine, maybe native git (pulling from each others’ remotes on a crontab, or sharing patches by listserv) is actually completely viable now.

I also wonder if agents will cause a shift from forking and contributing back upstream, to more like horizontal gene transfer where people or tight teams broadcast their repos and other projects borrow/steal whatever may be useful. You see this with the Claws where maintainers are simply swamped with contributions and no way to verify whether they are correct/positive. (Things like “first time install on a Mac mini breaks at step 7, due to some iMessage issue” are fiendishly difficult to automate”)

Re: Before GitHub

#202

Post by nmz »

wps wrote: post #21

I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…

A key feature of github is you could bug report on many projects without registering an account for each one, this is not true of fossil. if fossil is to be taken seriously, then it needs a distributed auto id system, oauth or the like.

Re: Before GitHub

#203

Post by Izkata »

robertlagrant wrote: post #180
Chaosvex wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not. That's been a thing for at least as long as mod_rewrite has existed (and I'm sure there's prior art). It was common long before GitHub.

It happened, but not as often as you'd think. In 2017 I was arguing with someone that the back button should work and URLs should be obvious in a fairly large project and they said "people are used to the back button not working - like a bank website".

Path parameters has nothing to do with history replacement breaking the back button, did you mean to respond to someone else?

Re: Before GitHub

#204

Post by nmz »

coldpie wrote: post #185
wps wrote: post #21

I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…

> I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easily allows me to get right back into the context of a project, niche details and agreements had with a client, etc. No need to pollute the codebase or gather together a million emails or notetaking software just to get back up to speed. Hmm that's interesting to hear. I'm starting up a very small business this year (one guy selling shit at a craft fair booth) and…

It has a wiki, forum and issues included. So it definitely can do that, what fossil allows by default is to not have a docs/ or bugs/todo file, because its all in the server part.

Re: Before GitHub

#205

Post by fl4regun »

robertlagrant wrote: post #180
Chaosvex wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not. That's been a thing for at least as long as mod_rewrite has existed (and I'm sure there's prior art). It was common long before GitHub.

It happened, but not as often as you'd think. In 2017 I was arguing with someone that the back button should work and URLs should be obvious in a fairly large project and they said "people are used to the back button not working - like a bank website".

i've seen people argue about how the back button should work this year on HN

Re: Before GitHub

#206

Post by nmz »

maccard wrote: post #141
jimbosis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also "Chisel - Fossil SCM Hosting". "This service is completely free and run because a service like it should exist." https://chiselapp.com/ "All public repositories": https://chiselapp.com/repositories/ I don't know if it has all the GitHub features people may be looking for. Chisel runs on Flint, "The ISC licensed codebase behind http://chiselapp.com .": https://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/flint/in…

This appears to be down.

It worked on ipv6 only for like a year, it seemed to be back this last month but it seems to be back down right now probably because of this whole github ragequit happening.

Re: Before GitHub

#207

Post by Izkata »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #174
mtlynch wrote: post #171

> For a while, leaving GitHub felt like a symbolic move mostly made by smaller projects or by people with strong views about software freedom. I definitely cringed when Zig moved to Codeberg! But I now see people with real weight and signal talking about leaving GitHub. The most obvious one is Mitchell Hashimoto, who announced that Ghostty will move. I didn't understand this. I perceive the Zig project and Mitchell H…

It’s because the more visible people are, the stronger they have a pull on others. It’s not so much about person A vs person B but about what likelihood am I attributing to an individual or project to pull others along. For me projects moving off GitHub prior to Zig didn’t have that yet and even Zig itself didn’t feel that meaningful to me. But you might think about it differently.

Their own example is an example of this. I've heard the name Fabrice Bellard but don't know who he is and don't know why I'd care, but Guido is a well-known name among python users and does hold weight. Looking up what Bellard is known for, I kind of expect this to be true of more people than not.

Re: Before GitHub

#208

Post by Kwpolska »

Lammy wrote: post #85
pxc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The usual pattern is that experiments belong to a user and then they graduate to having their own org iff they grow enough maintainers for that to make sense. How is that toxic or self-centered? It's just like "here's a place to do low-stakes experiments in public view". It's not particularly about ego or selfishness or whatever.

“Organizations” didn't exist until GitHub was already popular and entrenched, and it got popular and entrenched by centering the person developing the code instead of the code that was being developed: https://github.blog/news-insights/introducing-organizations/ And they weren't free until 2020: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/learning-about-github...

2010 is pretty early as far as GitHub history goes. Organizations were free, what wasn’t free was private repositories (but that applied to personal accounts too).

Re: Before GitHub

#210

Post by fcantournet »

bluedino wrote: post #187
pistoriusp wrote: post #3

This got me thinking about code.google.com, I can't believe Google dropped the ball that hard.

Has Google ever done a good job with anything, other than search? I don't want to count YouTube since they bought it, but least they haven't ruined it...

didn't they ? There is 4x more advertising for 4x less content and the recommendations are pretty crappy.
Post reply on HN