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

We lost 54k GitHub stars

httpie.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–697 of 697 posts

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#691

Post by farmerstan »

sbarre wrote: post #686
farmerstan wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to read more carefully. The author goes through great pains to ensure he doesn’t admit fault. Never once does he say “okay I admit, I should have been more careful.” He doesn’t take ownership ever over the fact that he made the mistake. He thinks this is all GitHub’s fault because of his misunderstanding and carelessness.

Not going to lie, this sounds like classic projection to me. You must focus a lot on blaming in your life if that's what you mostly noticed when reading that article. There's no way for either us to really know the author's intent or what he thinks - beyond the words on the page - but you seem convinced that "where the blame lies" was a major motivation, even thought it's all between the lines even by your own admiss…

I think the more you write the less you make sense and you’re really grasping at straws here. Nothing you say at this point is more than strawmen, meanwhile everything I have said is not only internally consistent but makes perfect sense. I think you should give it a rest.

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#692

Post by [deleted] »

vaishnavsm wrote: post #690
nine_k wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ON UPDATE trigger for the is_deleted column would do. Some databases also support INSTEAD OF triggers.

Doesn't ON UPDATE only work for foreign keys? As far as I know, it's used to update the foreign key itself, and not values based on relationships.

[deleted]

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#693

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

a99c43f2d565504 wrote: post #648
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #640

Okay. I just went in and double checked. 600+ comments bashing Github for not having prevented this action. Meanwhile, Github: 1) has this action in the "danger zone", literally the only UI element using RED COLOR; 2) has a warning banner on the dialog box that pops up when you click that button; 3) requires you to type in the name of the repository (which everyone copies and pastes anyway because they don’t get the…

I'd recommend reading the actual post carefully before claiming to having double checked anything and then going on judging using harsh language. You completely missed the 54k stars question presented and the context in which it was presented to the op.

Oh for god’s sake, cry me a river. Boo freaking hoo.

You go to the danger zone, you fucking stop and think, and you read the alerts, and make sure you understand what they actually say. Then you proceed, maybe. Like an adult. Next time, what, they’re going to mistake deleting a repository with changing its visibility?

If httpie is that good, they should be able to regrow their stars in no time. What a first-world problem to have indeed.

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#694

Post by belter »

vaishnavsm wrote: post #70

I really like this post. While the author clearly feels bad about the fact that they've lost his community and that GitHub didn't restore it (which is honestly what any of us would've felt under similar circumstances), they're also focusing towards the future and using their personal experience as a parable all of us can learn from. Lesson 1 on UI design I think is really important. I often think scary popup boxes ar…

Your comment missed the main lesson of the post.

GitHub (Microsoft) had a non intuitive UI feature, they themselves were victim of. They restored for their own repo but not for the customer repo...Zero customer focus is the lesson here.

"...In our case, however, they refuse to do that, citing undesirable side effects and the cost of resources. We even offered GitHub financial compensation for any resources required. But, sadly, they declined. They have other priorities than resurrecting the community of one of the oldest and most popular community projects on their platform..."

"...So the answer to the question is, unfortunately, the following: GitHub will restore a repo damaged by making it private. But only if it’s one of their own projects, not a community one.."

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#695

Post by account42 »

prepend wrote: post #565
ncmncm wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just, you know, not delete anything until otherwise asked to. None of tha has anything essential to do with making the thing private.

Is the repo is private then it’s impossible for anyone to “follow” by starring or watching. There’s also an issue of taking a repo private, making changes when no one gets alerted, and making it public to make it harder for people to know what’s going on.

> There’s also an issue of taking a repo private, making changes when no one gets alerted, and making it public to make it harder for people to know what’s going on.

They could always notify watchers about the repo being made private.

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#696

Post by account42 »

sriku wrote: post #667
decafb wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By now I've become so accustomed to just copy the bold text from the line above it and paste, that it doesn't break me out anymore. I know I should concentrate and type it out, but in my head it has just become visual noise and a boring exercise.

Aha .. perhaps the interface can be changed to prevent copy-paste into that field.

Better would be to not show the repo name directly above the dialog at all so the user actually has to think a bit about what they need to enter. Just re-typing a text shown to you can be done on autopilot as well.

Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars

#697

Post by mattcwilson »

alecbz wrote: post #682
mattcwilson wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sincerely struggling to understand - what is changed by referring to Github as the subject of the second sentence, as opposed to leaving out Github in the version you proposed?

It’s active voice vs passive voice. People frequently use the passive voice when referring to how software works. Like, “I entered my PIN and the phone unlocked”. “I entered my PIN and the phone unlocked itself” is maybe common too, but less common is “I entered my PIN and iOS unlocked my phone” or “I enter my pin and Apple unlocked my phone”[0]. Using the active voice shifts responsibility and autonomy for the actio…

Thank you for a patient explanation. I see that using passive voice leaves out all other decisions, choices, influences, etc. And I agree that active voice is a shift to bring those into the mix.

I think the point I’m hung up on is I just don’t see blame in my version. I sincerely read it as a factual retelling, including GitHub (the software) as an agent that responds to commands and performs them. It makes me wonder where the borderline (if there is one?) would be between statements that convey neutrality versus seeming to be accusations (perhaps unintentionally and undetectably).

I am curious what you do see as GitHub the company’s contributing actions to the overall situation. And where the accusation line might be.

Clearly someone or some group of someones at Github built the functionality. And, in so doing, made it possible for an accidental deletion situation to exist, even if at the time they did it completely in good intention and with included warnings.

At some point though, Github themselves deleted data on their own repo by taking it private. They followed up by restoring their data, and not changing the dialog to be more clear.

Are any of these statements blaming, to your eyes/ears?

Post reply on HN