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

Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 481 posts

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#301

Post by kgwxd »

floriangosse wrote: post #83

I think it's actually an understandable strategical move from Mozilla. They might loose some income from Google and probably have to cut the staff. But to keep the development of Firefox running they want to involve more people from the community and GitHub is the tool that brings most visibility on the market right now and is known by many developers. So the hurdle getting involved is much lower. I think you can dis…

Anyone that couldn't overcome those "hurdles" shouldn't even be filing bug reports, let alone modifying code.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#302

Post by fguerraz »

emigre wrote: post #298
jgraham wrote: post #158

(I work at Mozilla, but not on the VCS tooling, or this transition) To give a bit of additional context here, since the link doesn't have any: The Firefox code has indeed recently moved from having its canonical home on mercurial at hg.mozilla.org to GitHub. This only affects the code; bugzilla is still being used for issue tracking, phabricator for code review and landing, and our taskcluster system for CI. In the s…

Thanks for the context. IMHO I don't think Mozilla should have decided to move to a closed-source platform owned by Microsoft.

Thanks to the decentralised nature of git, this should matter only moderately.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#303

Post by andybak »

elric wrote: post #212
arp242 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub PRs don't solve anything about that, but I wouldn't have to spend (waste) time figuring out the contribution process. At least I learned a few things writing the patches. I learned nothing of value dealing with git email or Phabricator. It's just work of the boring and tedious kind.

Many projects have rules about what kinds of pull requests they accept. You would still have had to familiarise yourself with those rules, as well as the usual things like coding style, testing policies, etc.

Surely the claim being made is that the overall effort was increased in this case. That makes sense to me. I guess you can debate "but by how much?" but it seems fairly clear that there is more friction than there would have been via Github PRs

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#304

Post by IshKebab »

elric wrote: post #274
IshKebab wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count yourself lucky you haven't had to use Jira! Or bugzilla for that matter. I agree it is rather basic but I don't see how it's hard to navigate. > accepting GitHub PRs is going to be a recipe for thousands of low-value drive-by commits, which will require a lot of triage. I don't think that really happens based on what I've seen of other huge projects on GitHub.

> Count yourself lucky you haven't had to use Jira! Or bugzilla for that matter. Jira and bugzilla are vastly superior to GH Issues. Jira doesn't even deserve 10% of the hate it gets. Most of what makes Jira awful is the people using it. Bugzilla is getting a bit long in the tooth, but at least it's still free and open source.

> Jira and bugzilla are vastly superior to GH Issues.

I think you're in the tiny minority with that opinion.

> Most of what makes Jira awful is the people using it.

Not even close. Yes, people aren't good at administering it, but there are soooo many reasons that it's shit apart from that. Not least the hilarious slowness. Jira Cloud is so slow that not even Atlassian use it.

Also I don't think you can just say "you're holding it wrong". Part of the reason people screw up Jira configs so much is that it makes it so easy to screw them up. You can't separate the two.

> but at least it's still free and open source.

Just being open source doesn't make something good.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#305

Post by alabastervlog »

immibis wrote: post #280
GuB-42 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that using GitHub only for a public git repository is pretty good value. It is free and robust, and there is not much bad Microsoft can do to you. Because it is standard git, there is no lockdown. If they make a decision you don't like, migrating is just a git clone. As for the "training copilot" part, it is public, it doesn't change anything that Microsoft hosts the project on their own servers, they can…

I am banned from GitHub because I didn't want to give them my phone number. They ignored a legally binding GDPR request to delete all my data. I haven't got around to suing them yet. Recently I also got "rate limited" after opening about three web pages. Microsoft can do something to you, and that is to arbitrarily deny you access after you've built a dependence on it, and then make you jump through hoops to get acce…

> Recently I also got "rate limited" after opening about three web pages.

People who haven’t used it logged out recently may be surprised to find that they have, for some time, made the site effectively unusable without an account. Doing one search and clicking a couple results gets you temporarily blocked. It’s effectively an account-required website now.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#306

Post by immibis »

LadyCailin wrote: post #299
immibis wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am banned from GitHub because I didn't want to give them my phone number. They ignored a legally binding GDPR request to delete all my data. I haven't got around to suing them yet. Recently I also got "rate limited" after opening about three web pages. Microsoft can do something to you, and that is to arbitrarily deny you access after you've built a dependence on it, and then make you jump through hoops to get acce…

This is kind of a weird hill to die on, but you’re well within your rights, so you do you. However, it is clearly not correct to say that you were banned from GitHub. It’s like saying “I was banned from Google because I refuse to use computing devices.” Not really a ban, just self flagellation, which, again, whatever works for you.

Give me your social security number or you may not reply to my comments. If you don't give me your social security number, choosing instead to die on this weird hill, it's not correct to say you're banned - you're merely self-flagellating.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#307

Post by arp242 »

TheDong wrote: post #270
arp242 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub PRs don't solve anything about that, but I wouldn't have to spend (waste) time figuring out the contribution process. At least I learned a few things writing the patches. I learned nothing of value dealing with git email or Phabricator. It's just work of the boring and tedious kind.

Dealing with github is the boring and tedious thing, you have to run huge amount of proprietary javascript, keep up with their weird UX changes, start X11 to open a browser to render their html, overclock your CPU for a large PR review conversation to scroll without locking up your computer for minutes, constantly click "load more" since their webpage keeps hiding comments (while still lagging massively)... Email is…

"Boo hoo I need to start X11"? Seriously?

I have some unconventional workflows. And I try not to bother anyone else with it, especially in a volunteer driven open source context. It would be selfish to do otherwise.

To be honest based on what you've written here, keeping you out of my projects sounds like a good thing. What a bunch of piss and vinegar over how other people are choosing to work in a way that works for them.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#308

Post by phire »

lupusreal wrote: post #285
phire wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have forgotten just how bad centralised version control was in 2005. If you weren't connected to the internet, you couldn't do a thing. You couldn't checkout. You couldn't commit. You could create branches. The only thing on your computer was whatever you checked out last time you were connected to the server. People talk about SVN, but it wasn't that common in 2005. None of the project hosting platforms (like…

I am sure Sourceforge supported subversion by 2007 or 2008, I had a project there then. When was it added?

It's hard to find dates for that type of thing (especially with sourceforge, their website seems actively mess with the wayback machine). But I dug deeper, apparently Sourceforge got support for SVN in 2006, which is a few months before google code.

2006 appears to be the year that SVN finally became somewhat mainstream, which is interesting because git was released in 2005. Github launched in 2008 and by 2009, everyone seemed to be abandoning SVN.

It feels like SVN was only really "mainstream" for about 3 years, Maybe 5 years at most; There was some early-adopter lead-up and then a long tail of repos refusing to switch to git.

Post reply on HN