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

441–450 of 481 posts

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#441

Post by matheusmoreira »

matkoniecz wrote: post #413
matheusmoreira wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fawn over every contributor who creates an obviously low-effort one It's that sense of superiority that pisses me off. Many maintainers condescendingly reply "contributions welcome" in response to user complaints. People like that had better accept whatever they get. They could have easily done it themselves in all their "high quality" ways. They could have said "I don't have time for this" or even "I don't want to…

> People like that had better accept whatever they get. no, I am not obligated to merge badly written PRs introducing bugs just because I had no time to implement the feature myself

Let all those "bad PRs" with useful features and fixes accumulate at your own peril. You might wake up one day and find you're not upstream anymore because someone else has merged them all into a fork. I've seen it happen.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#442

Post by yndoendo »

fsflover wrote: post #383
JeremyNT wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, now they have the best of both worlds: let Microsoft host the code using a standard VCS, but avoid lock in by continuing to use their own issue tracker and project management software.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43971550

Mozilla has a lot more weight to throw around in incidents like this. Personally, I would never use Github. Microsoft keeps spiraling down the Enshitification drain.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#443

Post by nextaccountic »

SCdF wrote: post #155
nextaccountic wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the project is not just code. It also has issues, PRs and other stuff. Github has two kinds of lock in, a) your stuff is there and if you move elsewhere you probably will wipe your issues etc (huge loss of institutional knowledge), and b) there is a network effect because everyone has a github account and people are used to just hop on a repository and file an issue (rather than being greeted by a log i…

> Unfortunately the project is not just code. The literal project we are discussing is just code. It's literally just code. It doesn't have issues, PRs are disabled as much as they can be (by a GitHub action that automatically closes all PRs with a note that code should be submitted elsewhere), and all "other stuff" is disabled. https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox

This mirror is just code, but Firefox has issues. They are just stored elsewhere (bugzilla)

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#444

Post by glandium »

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…

You don't need a Github account to `git clone https://github.com/some/repo`

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#445

Post by rablackburn »

sublinear wrote: post #297
rablackburn wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I would love a good issue tracking system that is done entirely inside git You might like git-bug: https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug

Why bury this in the documentation if it's the sole feature its users would care about? https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug/blob/master/doc/design/da... This should be one of the very first links in the readme.

>> ...if it's the sole feature its users would care about?

The tag-line covers it pretty well I thought?

"git-bug is a standalone, distributed, offline-first issue management tool that embeds issues, comments, and more as objects in a git repository (not files!), enabling you to push and pull them to one or more remotes."

That tells you what the feature is - if you need/want a more technical overview you can still get from the `README` to `entity data model` in two clicks (Documentation > Data model).

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#446

Post by sudoforge »

sublinear wrote: post #297
rablackburn wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I would love a good issue tracking system that is done entirely inside git You might like git-bug: https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug

Why bury this in the documentation if it's the sole feature its users would care about? https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug/blob/master/doc/design/da... This should be one of the very first links in the readme.

hey there! i maintain git-bug, and recently trimmed down the README, which was, in my opinion, a bit too dense prior to this recent change (https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug/commit/96c7a111a3cb075b5c...).

i rewrote the README with the goal of providing a clear overview of git-bug's features, and why you might want to use it, and ensuring that for those who are more technically inclined, things like the data model, internal architecture, and more were easy to find under the documentation folder (whether you're browsing through the files directly, or landing on //doc:README.md, which links to the files and folders under //doc.

if you think that there is information missing from the README, or hard to find in the repository (either by browsing through it, or clicking the rather prominent links from the main README), i'd welcome any suggestions in the form of a PR.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#447

Post by guappa »

fu-hn wrote: post #357
alabastervlog wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They no longer allow sorting by number of stars in the search without being logged in either.

Stars can be bought, they aren't very reliable.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#448

Post by marcusramberg »

Macha wrote: post #215
monegator wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why github and not codeberg? badwidth? $$$ from microsoft? (traffic, free training for copilot, ..)

I'm not sure codeberg has managed two 9s of uptime while I've been using it. Manageable when it's just a public mirror for occasional publishing of my small hobby projects, but I wouldn't recommend it for Firefox sized projects

I use GitHub for work, and it very frequently has outages. Not sure codeberg could be much worse tbh.

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#449

Post by vintermann »

bitwize wrote: post #91
vintermann wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn't all this start with Linus getting into a spat with the bitkeeper dev It's a joke that the bitkeeper dev has two revision control named after him, Mercurial and Git.

I've heard the one that says much like Linux, Git is named after Linus himself.

That's what he says, and it's a sensible thing to say to not keep focus on old grudges, but people were really exasperated with Larry McVoy back in the day so I'm not sure it's entirely historically honest!

Re: Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

#450

Post by probably_wrong »

dzaima wrote: post #436
probably_wrong wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO Mercurial is (was?) more user-friendly. Here's a quick example: when I create a Mercurial repository Mercurial doesn't say anything, while Git yells at me that it's using "master" as its branch name but I can change it with a cryptic command. After a first commit for a file Mercurial once again doesn't say anything, while Git gives me three lines of information including the permissions for the file I just added.…

Heh, I've never noticed git commit including new file permissions on commit; definitely confusing/useless. Don't think "it prints less information" in general is a particularly good argument for user-friendliness though; if anything, it's the exact opposite. Trying out hg for the first time - "hg init; echo hello>world; hg commit" prints a "nothing changed" and I have no clue how to get it to commit my file! Whereas…

I think you are seeing it as a software developer as opposed to (say) a biologist on the first year of their PhD who just wants to keep their scripts safe. Mercurial's strong point (IMO) was to cater to the 90% of developers who work with two-to-three colleagues on a single branch - you could always make things more complex if needed (as evidenced by Firefox doing just fine), but the defaults were always more user-friendly than git's.

For a more time-appropriate critique, this post [1] from 2012 gives an overview of what working with Git felt like at the time when git was being popularized as an alternative to Subversion (including a frequent comment of "use Mercurial instead!"). It's also worth noting that git's error messages have become more helpful since - while the documentation for git-rebase used to be "Forward-port local commits to the updated upstream head", it now reads "Reapply commits on top of another base tip".

[1] https://stevebennett.me/2012/02/24/10-things-i-hate-about-gi...

Post reply on HN