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

SDL Moves to GitHub

discourse.libsdl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 270 posts

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#61

Post by zests »

d1zzy wrote: post #12
talhah wrote: post #3

I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?

Seems to be popular at Facebook.[1] Where I work Mercurial has been an option for some time now (no Git unfortunately) and coming from Git I must say I really love how it does some of its things: - hg split: split a commit into as many different commits as you like using an interactive patch editor (you can fold/collapse hunks, can edit them textually, can select which lines of the hunk should be applied). It will au…

I do this using magit. I’ve never split a commit directly (I’m sure its possible) but manipulate commits at the file/hunk/line granularity which I did not think was possible with git.

Same with histedit, that’s in magit as well.

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#62

Post by jefft255 »

einpoklum wrote: post #45

It seems to me people don't give enough thought to the possibility of hosting themselves elsewhere, and only "mirroring" onto GitHub for the presence effect. GCC does this (edit: LLVM half-does-it, in that issues are handled elsewhere). So does MonetDB and I'm sure there are a million more examples.

This doesn’t solve the issues of stuff like Bugzilla, plus these mirror only offer a fraction of what GitHub truly offers (issues, CI, pull requests with nice interface).

Basically, if you think your home grown infra sucks, a GitHub mirror doesn’t address that.

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#63

Post by tomjakubowski »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #40
jmercouris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A much better UI. Git won because of the influence of the Linux kernel developers, that's all.

Not only that, but GitHub came early and made the hosting easy. There was no similar offering for hg that early on.

Circa 2011, Bitbucket was Hg-only and pretty comparable to GitHub in repository hosting features at the time.

Took a bit to dig up with Google their 2011 announcement that they're now also supporting Git. https://bitbucket.org/blog/bitbucket-now-rocks-git

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#64

Post by olmideso »

einpoklum wrote: post #45

It seems to me people don't give enough thought to the possibility of hosting themselves elsewhere, and only "mirroring" onto GitHub for the presence effect. GCC does this (edit: LLVM half-does-it, in that issues are handled elsewhere). So does MonetDB and I'm sure there are a million more examples.

Actually LLVM has their official repository there, not a mirror as GCC[0]. But they still do reviews and merges outside of github. linux kernel project does a similar thing.

[0] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#65

Post by simonw »

pdw wrote: post #35
dialamac wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean git is wildly popular because of GitHub, and probably that was something to do with it in the Rails community... a community that if anything is culturally the opposite of the kernel dev community (or at least very different). I don’t think any kernel dev influence had to do with it, even though it’s often stated as a fact.

No, even at the time of GitHub's founding Git was already the clear winner. Think about it, why did GitHub feel safe launching with only Git support, while its competitors (Google Code, Bitbucket, SourceForge) had support for multiple VCSs?

Disagree. Git wasn't the clear winner when GitHub launched - and in fact the entire category of distributed version control was still proving itself.

I remember the GitHub team investing huge amounts of effort into convincing people to use git and teaching them how to do it - one of the four co-founders (Scott) was dedicated to that effort full-time.

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#66

Post by stu2b50 »

encom wrote: post #55
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GitHub is generally safe as long as you have an exit plan for when it's no longer the place you want to be. Know where you're moving your issues and actions if you decide you need to leave.

Since the Microsoft takeover, the platform is compromised. It seems people have very short memories.

I'm curious, what is the threat model? For SDL, for example, what's the nightmare scenario with Github and Microsoft?

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#67

Post by tux1968 »

xyst wrote: post #6
jmercouris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A much better UI. Git won because of the influence of the Linux kernel developers, that's all.

The influence of a single linux kernel developer is the reason it's adoption is so high - Linus Torvalds.

That's much too simplistic. For instance Linus also denounces C++ and programmers don't fall into line behind him on that front. He is influential, but could not have caused the monumental shift in version control without producing a phenomenal tool to do the job. Git largely won on its overall merit, despite having some obvious UI warts.

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#68

Post by slenk »

h_anna_h wrote: post #39

This is sad. It is as if we are going backwards, from an open source solution they decided to move to a closed ecosystem. They could at least use gitlab instead...

Well, GitLab has recently hiked up their prices. As a GitHub Pro user, my price has only ever gone down.

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#69

Post by kbenson »

xyst wrote: post #6
jmercouris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A much better UI. Git won because of the influence of the Linux kernel developers, that's all.

The influence of a single linux kernel developer is the reason it's adoption is so high - Linus Torvalds.

Eh, that's a bit reductionist. Git was developed by Tovalds because BitKeeper had shortcomings he kept grating against, and it really needed to be a DVCS for kernel development. So he created something that fit the kernel development needs well, and it happened to also fit the needs of other companies as well. That it was free and open source was icing on the cake. That Torvalds created it just meant that there was already a wide audience of people willing to consider it and give it a fair shake initially.

I'm sure it didn't hurt that Torvalds had many years of experience dealing with lots of the shortcomings of different version control systems and their shortcomings in what is probably one of the more extreme version control situations, and is also known for optimizing the hard parts of things.

It was really the perfect storm for good open source software. A highly skilled developer with massive amounts of domain experience that is highly motivated to solve the problem. What you often get in those situations is something that is an obvious step up from the status quo, at least of free offerings, and often matching the paid offerings if they are more advanced. If it wasn't Torvalds, it just would have taken longer to take over.

Re: SDL Moves to GitHub

#70

Post by tux1968 »

rileymat2 wrote: post #37
talhah wrote: post #3

I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?

I had tried both in thier infancy, and honestly prefered mercurial by quite a bit. But git had the momentum. One thing I liked, that most do not is they had both git style branches in the form of tags, but mercurial had "real" branches.

Git branches and tags were independent features from the very start. It's true that branches were not stored in a separate directory, but that really wouldn't add much. There were tools to check out a branch into a separate working directory on the filesystem. And it was always straightforward to store branches in separate full repos too.
Post reply on HN