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

There's a map for that

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: There's a map for that

#31

Post by spikels »

philfreo wrote: post #6
bitops wrote: post #3

I am curious if anyone has any insight as to what GitHub's strategy is with this move? It seems that they are steadily tracking towards a browser-based cloud IDE. GitHub also seems to be a popular choice for devs hosting their blogs. I wonder if they're hoping to be a more all-round app hosting service?

I imagine their long term vision would be to allow better collaboration for all types of data-based projects (whether code, or geo data, or books). In the short term, any small project like this that makes GitHub a little cooler is fair game.

I second the call for supporting books. There are already quite a few books being published on GitHub and it seems like an almost natural way to collaboratively write a book that could forever kept up to date. Not sure if anything has been done specifically to support writing a book on GitHub.

Re: There's a map for that

#32

Post by Newky »

noelwelsh wrote: post #11

I wonder about priorities when I read this. For example, how do I diff two commits via Github? There is a blog post describing this feature: https://github.com/blog/612-introducing-github-compare-view However it seems the UI has changed, and the only way I could find to use it was to manually construct the URL. I'd love for someone to show me some obvious UI I've missed. Diffing is really fundamental for a VCS. I'd m…

I have to agree.

The fact that you still cannot do side by side diffs on pull requests makes it a less than useful code review tool.

Re: There's a map for that

#33

Post by jknz »

A terrific feature would be to have the same in gist, embeddable everywhere.

Want to show a place or some directions on your website/blog/... ?

Just create a gist with geojson format and embed it on your blog, as programming blogs embed code gist right now.

Congrats!

Re: There's a map for that

#34

Post by monkmartinez »

This is really cool! However, I would be remiss to not mention that I would love for Github to focus more on Git. I have been using git for about two years, but I am far, far, far from being a git ninja. I suspect that I am not alone based on what I see at stackoverflow with questions tagged "git."

What if they spent their time improving: 1. Github Pulls - Have you seen the hoops one needs to jump through to submit a single-commit pull request? One needs to be extra careful about the workflow.

2. Let me determine the Project/Repo language - How many repos do you have that are labeled Javascript when its really a Python, Ruby or something else Project? Not critical, but seems really silly that I have to wade into the src to determine something like base lang.

3. Make git, itself, more intuitive - Surely if they can add the crazy cool features they've added, making the management of git repos DEAD simple should be a priority. Look at the questions tagged with "git" on stackoverflow and see how many you could devine an answer from using github.

4. Git fast forward - Could github provide an way to see what is going to happen to a repo when issuing git commands? All these cool visualizations online and we have to experiment with git locally seems a bit odd.

Free idea; Gitfiddle. See what your crazy ass commands will do to your repo before you spend the next 4 hours figuring out why you didn't want to do that.

Ie. Find the merge base between your branch and master: ‘git merge-base master yourbranch’ Assuming you’ve already committed your changes, rebased your commit onto the merge base, then create a new branch: git rebase –onto HEAD~1 HEAD git checkout -b my-new-branch Checkout your ruggedisation branch, and remove the commit you just rebased: ‘git reset –hard HEAD~1′ Merge your new branch back into ruggedisation: ‘git merge my-new-branch’ Checkout master (‘git checkout master’), merge your new branch in (‘git merge my-new-branch’), and check it works when merged, then remove the merge (‘git reset –hard HEAD~1′). Push your new branch (‘git push origin my-new-branch’) and log a pull request.

the above from: http://steveko.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/10-things-i-hate-abo...

Re: There's a map for that

#35

Post by gkop »

monkmartinez wrote: post #34

This is really cool! However, I would be remiss to not mention that I would love for Github to focus more on Git. I have been using git for about two years, but I am far, far, far from being a git ninja. I suspect that I am not alone based on what I see at stackoverflow with questions tagged "git." What if they spent their time improving: 1. Github Pulls - Have you seen the hoops one needs to jump through to submit a…

> Free idea; Gitfiddle. See what your crazy ass commands will do to your repo before you spend the next 4 hours figuring out why you didn't want to do that.

It's really hard to screw things up that badly with git, you can nearly always go back using $ git reflog and $ git reset --hard .

Re: There's a map for that

#36

Post by dangoldin »

gonehome wrote: post #14
callmeed wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent Inc. article [1] about GitHub isn't really deep but the end has some insights: a shift is taking place: "Now we are finding that it's not just about the code; it's about, 'Hey, I want to work on this with you.' That's really eye-opening to us and gets everyone here superexcited. Working with someone else is just an awesome part of being alive. Creating art, creating tools, creating documents, doing homewor…

This reminds me of trying to determine the scope of your company. I remember reading somewhere (probably here) that part of the reason the railroads failed to adapt to cars was because they thought of themselves as railroad companies instead of transportation companies. Maybe github is thinking of themselves as a collaborative work company rather than a collaborative coding company and trying to adapt to that.

And your comment reminded of something similar with Coke. At some point they decided that they weren't competing with other soda manufacturers but for "share of stomach" and started going in that direction by going on an acquisition spree.

Re: There's a map for that

#37

Post by monkmartinez »

gkop wrote: post #35
monkmartinez wrote: post #34

This is really cool! However, I would be remiss to not mention that I would love for Github to focus more on Git. I have been using git for about two years, but I am far, far, far from being a git ninja. I suspect that I am not alone based on what I see at stackoverflow with questions tagged "git." What if they spent their time improving: 1. Github Pulls - Have you seen the hoops one needs to jump through to submit a…

> Free idea; Gitfiddle. See what your crazy ass commands will do to your repo before you spend the next 4 hours figuring out why you didn't want to do that. It's really hard to screw things up that badly with git, you can nearly always go back using $ git reflog and $ git reset --hard .

You can't screw it up they says, it so easy they says... well then why this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/134882/undoing-a-git-reba... and this: http://ocpsoft.org/tutorials/git/use-reflog-and-cherry-pick-... and a gazillion more just for that one command; 'reflog'... type --rebase vs --merge and let your head explode with the rest of us n00bs.

The truth; Git is hard. My opinion, I want to write code and keep it somewhere. I'm not a professional developer and I want to contribute to open source in my free time. That means git || hub, generally. It would be awesome for Github to make git exploration from the browser easier. Yes, I pay github every month and I am happy to do it.

Re: There's a map for that

#38

Post by TeMPOraL »

Since GitHub is starting to feel Emacs-like, why not go fully in this direction? Add a "dotfile" repository for everyone to manage their own client-side JavaScript extensions for Github that would be loaded by default. And then let people collaborate, share and create extensions and "configurations". Want a better map? Fork the official one and modify it. And then let others fork from you.

Re: There's a map for that

#39

Post by gkop »

monkmartinez wrote: post #37
gkop wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free idea; Gitfiddle. See what your crazy ass commands will do to your repo before you spend the next 4 hours figuring out why you didn't want to do that. It's really hard to screw things up that badly with git, you can nearly always go back using $ git reflog and $ git reset --hard .

You can't screw it up they says, it so easy they says... well then why this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/134882/undoing-a-git-reba... and this: http://ocpsoft.org/tutorials/git/use-reflog-and-cherry-pick-... and a gazillion more just for that one command; 'reflog'... type --rebase vs --merge and let your head explode with the rest of us n00bs. The truth; Git is hard. My opinion, I want to write code and keep i…

Agree that the git command-line API is harder than it ought to be. My comment was meant to help git beginners that are afraid of exploring for fear of wasting many hours fixing their mistakes; you should consider learning the commands to undo your mistakes before learning other crazy commands.

Re: There's a map for that

#40

Post by karussell »

gkop wrote: post #4
bitops wrote: post #3

I am curious if anyone has any insight as to what GitHub's strategy is with this move? It seems that they are steadily tracking towards a browser-based cloud IDE. GitHub also seems to be a popular choice for devs hosting their blogs. I wonder if they're hoping to be a more all-round app hosting service?

I wouldn't overthink it, it may have just been for fun, like something that came out of a hackathon or that an intern wanted to do.

Or because of profit ala "powered by mapbox"
Post reply on HN