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

Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 255 posts

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#81

Post by colbyrussell »

rocqua wrote: post #79
colbyrussell wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

The attach and upload part, and figuring out how the discussion went on the mailing list if changes are requested.

What makes either of those things harder than what you have to do to use github.com?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#82

Post by diminoten »

colbyrussell wrote: post #80
diminoten wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you honestly taking the position that graphical user interfaces are harder to use than CLI?

Let me ask, do you think that the content of my message reduces to "graphical user interfaces are harder to use than CLI"?

Yes, I do!

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#83

Post by colbyrussell »

diminoten wrote: post #82
colbyrussell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me ask, do you think that the content of my message reduces to "graphical user interfaces are harder to use than CLI"?

Yes, I do!

Please explain how you got there, because I'm at a loss. Both examples involve using the CLI. The GitHub version I ran through actually includes more CLI steps. How could that possibly have been my intention?

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#84

Post by diminoten »

colbyrussell wrote: post #83
diminoten wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do!

Please explain how you got there, because I'm at a loss. Both examples involve using the CLI. The GitHub version I ran through actually includes more CLI steps. How could that possibly have been my intention?

Your references to clicking repeatedly, and the general fact that github.com's innovation is the GUI it puts on top of a git workflow.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#85

Post by colbyrussell »

diminoten wrote: post #84
colbyrussell wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how you got there, because I'm at a loss. Both examples involve using the CLI. The GitHub version I ran through actually includes more CLI steps. How could that possibly have been my intention?

Your references to clicking repeatedly, and the general fact that github.com's innovation is the GUI it puts on top of a git workflow.

I'm mystified about what's going on right now.

Both versions involve clicking.

Both versions involve command-line steps.

The difference is that the GitHub version requires more of both, needlessly. That's the point of what I wrote. That's the only point.

I don't understand this context where I'm being forced to defend an argument that's been foisted upon me and that I never made and never even thought of trying to make.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#86

Post by diminoten »

colbyrussell wrote: post #85
diminoten wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your references to clicking repeatedly, and the general fact that github.com's innovation is the GUI it puts on top of a git workflow.

I'm mystified about what's going on right now. Both versions involve clicking. Both versions involve command-line steps. The difference is that the GitHub version requires more of both, needlessly. That's the point of what I wrote. That's the only point. I don't understand this context where I'm being forced to defend an argument that's been foisted upon me and that I never made and never even thought of trying to ma…

I'm sorry you don't understand it, but you don't get to ignore the implications that spawn off of your argument just because they're inconvenient.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#87

Post by tnolet »

snazz wrote: post #8

It confuses me why so many traditionally pro-FOSS projects move to a not-free-nor-open tool like GitHub. Do they think that they’ll get enough new contributors this way to offset the (more than slight) irony?

Probably because UX and adoption trumps FOSS purism.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#88

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

ultim8k wrote: post #53
wDcBKgt66V8WDs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To all you who think this idea is unfounded or dramatic, remember that this is the entire point of FOSS. Whether this idea holds water is irrelevant, it's aligned to FOSS and it's strange that they don't appear to care or have valued other things over it.

Hmm based on this, the .org tld and the server providers can have control over the project too. Right? If so, we should use an open source distributed protocol.

> Hmm based on this, the .org tld and the server providers can have control over the project too. Right?

No, pretty obviously not. For the domain, this has already been answered. For the servers, it's trivial to move your setup to a different hoster with no visible effects to the outside.

> If so, we should use an open source distributed protocol.

Like ... git and email? Yeah, we should.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#89

Post by jeena »

batbomb wrote: post #27
dijit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, it's not like all of Gitlab is fully open source. I think this is not a fair assessment, GitLabs community edition is fully open source and is a full product. The fact you can add proprietary elements for a licensing fee (which are also "open" in that they are readable, debuggable, etc;) is not at all the same as hosting on a platform which is entirely proprietary.

You are also not being fair to github then - you can run Github Enterprise Server and it is also "open" in that it's readable (non-obfuscated), debuggable, etc... It's basically a snapshot of what they run at github.com with added features for enterprise (like AD integration). You can't distribute the code. How easy it is to actually do that depends on your ruby skills and your wallet.

I don't think that people are drawn to the specific github implementation (code), it's that they're drawn to github.com the domain where you can't do what you propose.

Re: Apache Software Foundation joins GitHub open source community

#90

Post by BinaryIdiot »

colbyrussell wrote: post #77
pas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess gitlab is the same. The important flow is that there's a very easy way to fork and send a pull/merge request.

"Easy" like: git diff master..bugfix > bugfix.patch # or `format-patch` # now attach/upload bugfix.patch Instead of: # make sure you click around github.com to create third fork git remote add unnecessary-third-fork $THIRDFORK git push unnecessary-third-fork bugfix firefox $THIRDFORK # now click around to file a PR # now wait for your PR to be merged # now click around on github.com to delete $THIRDFORK # ... unless…

The majority of git users I know don't know how to create or apply a patch. The few that do only do so in the odd FOSS project that requires it.

Whereas when using Github you click a button, get your own copy, do whatever you want to it, and then click a button to open a pull request. You _tried_ to make it look like using GitHub.com is somehow... complicated. But it's dead simple and you even added steps, like "waiting for PR to merge" etc that is the same with a mailing list anyway.

I get it. You might like the mailing list better to avoid a single company handling all of the OSS contributions. But let's not ignore the actual good aspects of github by making up stuff. If you want to convince people to _not_ use github it's going to take more than this.

Post reply on HN