221–230 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he was excgarating the issue a bit. Your logic is sound
> excgarating I commit to re-use this as often as possible! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Excgarated An inspiring new word invented by a redditor on March 23, 2014. The redditor was actually trying to spell exaggerated. This word was misspelled so horribly that when it was googled the only thing that came up was a link to the comment itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to be a "crappy manual system" - I'm simply suggesting that given that git itself is a damned good distributed versioning database for arbitrary content, then we might as well also use it for distributed issue-tracking. A simple offline-mode browser-based editor that lives in a single HTML file within the repo would provide a nice GUI on top. Hmm, I think I might be on to something... anyone want to s…
>git itself is a damned good distributed versioning database for arbitrary content, then we might as well also use it for distributed issue-tracking. For what it's worth, it's interesting to see that the Fossil distributed SCM includes an issue tracker but they made a deliberate architecture decision to not propagate the tickets data.[1] They had a chance to make your "distributed-issues-tracking" idea a 1st-class co…
I would love to see a chart of traffic to other sites when GitHub goes down. My bet is that HackerNews and Twitter both get significant spikes from all those bored developers.
> bored developers Bored? Git's a distributed version control system, so no excuses. Get back to work! But in all seriousness I kind of wish GitHub provided a way to mirror things like issues and PRs so you never have to be fully reliant on one service. Not being able to read these really does make it impossible to get work done offline.
[0] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, so basically in a centralized permission model some authority (the database) decides if any write is authorized or not, but in decentralized, any peer just writes anything, and then the readers decide whether they interpret that as valid or not. Here is a description of a model that embraces both any-one-can-edit with degrees of consensus on who is allowed to edit. http://viewer.scuttlebot.io/%25GKmZNjjB3voORbvg…
Your comment is entirely nonsensical in this context. I want a way to be able to publish a repo and have the people subscribing to the repo be able to only pay attention to my changes in an automated way. This software currently doesn't implement that, as far as the guide that was linked suggests. It is therefore utterly useless - every time someone decides to grief my repo, it requires manual intervention to resolve…
so I answered, _yes, theoretically_ we have ideas for how to implement that. you can also unfollow and block griefers, but so far pretty much everyone has been nice and we just havn't needed to implement that yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Github employs members of the Rails core team including Aaron Patterson. They literally pay for open source software development. I'm sure they employ direct maintainers/contributors to other open source projects as well.
Are they paying him to help make an open source alternative to github? If not, then it's not really relevant. They are actively working against open source tooling for software development by developing features only for their closed platform. Gitlab is a much better example of a company that fully embraces open source.
GitLab Enterprise Edition does not have an open source license. Since GitLab.com runs GitLab EE, their two (presumably) primary sources of revenue (EE licenses and GitLab.com paid accounts) come from non-open source software.
But: it's still fair to call GitLab as a company way more Open Source than GitHub. All of their development happens out in the open, the vast majority of their codebase is Open Source, and the source code for GitLab EE is even made available.
This is a spectrum, not black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seemed to be suffering some external attacks / DDoS but I never saw a post-mortem from them on it, hopefully one is forthcoming (or maybe is out but I missed it)
They don't do post mortems.
https://github.com/blog/2106-january-28th-incident-report
https://github.com/blog/2273-incident-report-inadvertent-pri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not the files, it's the project management stuff (issues and PR tracking). That is a SPOF. If they could decentralize that, then nobody would care if they are down half the time.
I wonder why you can't export them as a read-only git repository. (Read-only to avoid people messing around with the history)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't do any testing before push to prod?
It's called continuous delivery, man. Merge to master and it goes out the door automatically, even if it's busted to hell. All the cool kids are doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he was excgarating the issue a bit. Your logic is sound
> excgarating I commit to re-use this as often as possible! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Excgarated An inspiring new word invented by a redditor on March 23, 2014. The redditor was actually trying to spell exaggerated. This word was misspelled so horribly that when it was googled the only thing that came up was a link to the comment itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Github employs members of the Rails core team including Aaron Patterson. They literally pay for open source software development. I'm sure they employ direct maintainers/contributors to other open source projects as well.
And you believe that makes them an "Open Source Company" To me in order to be a Open Source company your primary product must itself be Open Source. RedHat as an example... RHEL is open source GitLab.. GitLab is open source These are open source companies Hiring a few devs for work on some side projects that are open source does not make one an Open Source Company If they open GitHub Core then they can claim to be a…
Also as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Github has published plenty of open source software. Electron, Atom, resque, and updates to git itself.