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

Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#71

Post by matt4077 »

gksmythe wrote: post #3

The tyranny of GitHub. GitHub pull requests are one of the most cumbersome ways of contributing to OSS. What people really like is: a) The paper trail (I can show to my career manager that I've done some work). b) The constant distractions that feel like work. c) Minor issues seem like major contributions. d) Self promotion.

This is insane, considering the process before github was "send a patch by email".

Hundreds of thousands of people, including me, have started contributing patches because the Github process has a much lower barrier to entry, is standardised, and effortlessly teaches you how to do it when you browse around a project.

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#72

Post by piotrkaminski »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #52
danpalmer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also be interested in knowing. I also feel GitHub's issue tracker is not right for a large project like this. As for the code review tools though, I've not yet seen something that I feel is materially better than GitHub + PRs + some bot-enabled automation. I understand that many people _prefer_ things like Gerrit, but I've found the difference to mostly be opinion, and that Gerrit can be a significant problem in…

so you don't mind having review comments disappear if somebody updates the PR, and it doesn't bother you not being able to say in a comment "this needs fixing" in a way that you can mark it fixed later on (and without marking as fixed the PR can't be merged)? Github reviews are fine for a one-and-done merge, but for a back & forth review I really wish it had the above...

This looks like a good spot to plug Reviewable (https://reviewable.io), which addresses the disappearing / untracked comments issues and more, while still integrating with GitHub rather more gracefully than something like Gerrit. While GitHub's PR review tooling has improved in the last year there's still a fundamental difference in philosophy such that Reviewable isn't lacking for customers. :) (Disclosure: I'm the founder.)

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#73

Post by lzy »

sli wrote: post #58
maaaats wrote: post #4

Kinda scary how de facto Github has become, that external tooling is discouraged. Github is a bad issue tracker, a bad code review tool, an ok wiki and a bad distribution platform. Still, one has to mostly use the whole package to get contributors. (Github has other strengths, though)

One thing Github does that really bothers me is that if your paid account lapses, you must pay to get your private repos back. You don't have the option to simply set your repos to public. The only options Github gives you is pay money or lose your repos. As far as I care, that's practically extortion. So I moved to Gitlab. Luckily, Github screwed up and temporarily unlocked my private repos, letting me grab the ones…

I believe this is false. The private repos will be locked when you're no longer on a paid account but you can set them to public to regain access.

https://help.github.com/articles/unlocking-a-locked-personal...

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#74

Post by coldtea »

Tade0 wrote: post #47
coldtea wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the GitHub thread was "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the past history of a nation"

You're confusing a noun with an adjective. As an adjective it's something that's "extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope".

epic, adjective

  1. relating to or characteristic of an epic or epics.

  2. heroic or grand in scale or character.
  "his epic journey around the world"
You were saying?

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#75

Post by Tade0 »

coldtea wrote: post #74
Tade0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing a noun with an adjective. As an adjective it's something that's "extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope".

epic, adjective 1. relating to or characteristic of an epic or epics. 2. heroic or grand in scale or character. "his epic journey around the world" You were saying?

Citation needed.

Here's my source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epic

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#76

Post by giancarlostoro »

sytse wrote: post #64
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BitBucket is plenty popular as well, I run into projects that are on there instead of GH for Python. I kind of prefer BitBucket to GitHub the only thing GitHub does right is their "Explore" section which I don't think BitBucket has (or GitLab?) but that's about it for me. I don't care where one hosts code, as long as it's not some obscure server.

GitLab has an explore section https://gitlab.com/explore but it isn't as good as GitHub's one. Both to having less projects and us spending less time on it.

Oh that's nice, found some interesting projects there, thank you. I use all three git sites, I mostly use BitBucket because it was the first one I found with free git repositories, but I use GitLab now for private projects. Thank you again for coming on here and always being willing to respond to anyone asking about GitLab I always appreciated that about you.

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#77

Post by coldtea »

Tade0 wrote: post #75
coldtea wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

epic, adjective 1. relating to or characteristic of an epic or epics. 2. heroic or grand in scale or character. "his epic journey around the world" You were saying?

Citation needed. Here's my source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epic

Mine was OS X dictionary IIRC, but here's dictionary.com:

adjective, Also, epical 1. noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style: Homer'sIliad is an epic poem. 2. resembling or suggesting such poetry: an epic novel on the founding of the country. 3. heroic; majestic; impressively great: the epic events of the war. 4. of unusually great size or extent: a crime wave of epic proportions. 5. Slang. spectacular; very impressive; awesome: Their burgers and fries are epic!

So if (4) is what you mean, it's not exactly the first definition for the adjective either.

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#78

Post by danpalmer »

piotrkaminski wrote: post #72
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you don't mind having review comments disappear if somebody updates the PR, and it doesn't bother you not being able to say in a comment "this needs fixing" in a way that you can mark it fixed later on (and without marking as fixed the PR can't be merged)? Github reviews are fine for a one-and-done merge, but for a back & forth review I really wish it had the above...

This looks like a good spot to plug Reviewable ( https://reviewable.io ), which addresses the disappearing / untracked comments issues and more, while still integrating with GitHub rather more gracefully than something like Gerrit. While GitHub's PR review tooling has improved in the last year there's still a fundamental difference in philosophy such that Reviewable isn't lacking for customers. :) (Disclosure: I'm th…

I've looked at Reviewable several times, and I'm afraid to say I've never been convinced to try it. There's obviously a huge cost to moving team process over to a new tool like this, but also I just found it more difficult to understand what was going on compared to GitHub reviews, so it wasn't particularly compelling for us. Hope you don't mind the candid feedback!

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#79

Post by danpalmer »

lloeki wrote: post #62
danpalmer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also be interested in knowing. I also feel GitHub's issue tracker is not right for a large project like this. As for the code review tools though, I've not yet seen something that I feel is materially better than GitHub + PRs + some bot-enabled automation. I understand that many people _prefer_ things like Gerrit, but I've found the difference to mostly be opinion, and that Gerrit can be a significant problem in…

GitLab's threaded, resolvable discussions is very efficient, especially if you enable mandatory resolution before merge, forcing you to create issues for unresolved ones through the related button, guaranteeing you never loose track of something that should be resolved. I have a hard time going back to GitHub because it's so useful.

That's great to hear, I haven't used GitLab for code review before. I struggle to use the rest of GitLab, but it's improving all the time so we might consider it once it's up to the usability of GitHub for the rest of the experience.

Re: Golang Proposal: Just Use GitHub

#80

Post by danpalmer »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #52
danpalmer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also be interested in knowing. I also feel GitHub's issue tracker is not right for a large project like this. As for the code review tools though, I've not yet seen something that I feel is materially better than GitHub + PRs + some bot-enabled automation. I understand that many people _prefer_ things like Gerrit, but I've found the difference to mostly be opinion, and that Gerrit can be a significant problem in…

so you don't mind having review comments disappear if somebody updates the PR, and it doesn't bother you not being able to say in a comment "this needs fixing" in a way that you can mark it fixed later on (and without marking as fixed the PR can't be merged)? Github reviews are fine for a one-and-done merge, but for a back & forth review I really wish it had the above...

I totally agree, I wish it had that too!
Post reply on HN