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

If I could make my own GitHub

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#81

Post by chii »

ahartmetz wrote: post #58
dust-jacket wrote: post #47

> PR approval is too boolean. The PR is approved or it's not approved. Real code review, like real life, lives in the middle This is have-your-cake-and-eat-it. PR approval is a permission so is a boolean. Of course it is. Either the code can be merged or it can't. What's being described really here is just something to make you feel slightly better about yourself whilst approving code you hate ("we should revisit thi…

Gerrit has -2...+2. -2: This is a bad idea, don't do that -1: This is a good idea but needs improvement +1: LGTM but I don't have enough knowledge or authority to approve +2: Approved

everything except +2 is unapprove.

The nuance is comments on the PR itself, rather than the state of the approval, which is binary (or ternary, if you want to count leaving it in an unknown state for extended periods of time).

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#82

Post by nirui »

> This person has a family. This person has hobbies. This person is, at this moment, crying.

Reminded me one benefit of email-based workflow.

If I started receiving email, that's usually because I'm in the right mood to doing so. In such mood, I'll be more focused because I expect nothing else to interrupt my work.

My problem with notification is that there's a pull towards clearing them as they show up. But there's no guarantee I have the right energy at the moment.

Also, I found that most notification systems on the web are poor mimics of what email client has already archived decades ago. Maybe the old folks really got it right for using emails.

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#83

Post by newshackr »

chii wrote: post #81
ahartmetz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrit has -2...+2. -2: This is a bad idea, don't do that -1: This is a good idea but needs improvement +1: LGTM but I don't have enough knowledge or authority to approve +2: Approved

everything except +2 is unapprove. The nuance is comments on the PR itself, rather than the state of the approval, which is binary (or ternary, if you want to count leaving it in an unknown state for extended periods of time).

What if you want someone to look at a portion of it but they don't know enough to approve the whole thing. They give +1

Someone else knows the other portion well and sees the +1 and decides to +2.

In practice this ends the stalemate where partial owners don't feel confident to approve the whole thing

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#85

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Aeolun wrote: post #55
stavros wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why doesn't Gitea add it? It already has everything else, why are these forges always Github clones instead of doing more?

Well, if you are building one you generally want to support the 99% workflow, not the experimental one. What part of gerrit is so different? Stacked PR’s work fine right (not in github, as a concept)

The number one thing that gerrit does that is important is keep comments tied to the code between commits.

By which I mean the discussion doesn't get broken between changes, and it makes it far more trivial to iterate on things in the review without breaking the discussion. And for the reviewer to see what's changed between revisions at the specific comment point they're looking at. And then have a nice clean commit at the end instead of some dogs breakfast of merge commit with revision commits shoved in it.

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#86

Post by ralferoo »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #45
ralferoo wrote: post #36

There's a good argument to be made that the data for reviews could be held in git repos just as easily as the source. It can be done incredibly easily simply by having a branch per review with a known prefix (although these will rapidly clog up the default branch namespace), implemented via git namespaces to be distinct from the main namespace, or maybe just a special branch e.g. ".reviews" that just contains commit…

There were a few efforts like that back in the day (when people still cared about offline and store-and-forward-style operation[1]), like Bugs Everywhere[3], git-appraise[4] which stored its data in Git’s little-known “notes” namespace[5], and git-bug[6] which for some reason I’ve seen mentioned quite a bit in such threads recently unlike the others—though I’m not complaining about one of them getting mentioned at le…

Lots of good points. As for the last point, most review tools seem to be centered on tracking a branch ref over time. The actual merge strategy probably doesn't really matter as long as the tool can see that the watched reference now points to a new commit.

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#87

Post by colechristensen »

jacobwiseberg wrote: post #17

When the solution becomes the problem, an opportunity for disruption opens up. Lots of chatter around this right now. I'd be curious to see if any of the many alternatives popping up gain traction before Github course corrects.

I'm building my own tools. I think people should build their own tools.

The future might look something like instead of paid software or open source software what you get is a set of requirements documents for a code forge, like a recipe. You bake your own.

Then you alter it to your particular use case and set of preferences.

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#88

Post by xixixao »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #29
xixixao wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think GitLab is a good alternative to GitHub, I have 0 trust in you. GitLab and Azure are a daily source of pain for us.

Can you name some? I keep wondering about the aversion to Gitlab. I have yet to have negative experiences with it.

The really bad:

UI is constantly inconsistent. You have to keep reloading the page to hope to see what’s up with your MR. Doesn’t help it’s super slow to load.

The backend infra is super unreliable, with actions failing to start, merge trains being stuck, their webhooks being overloaded.

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#89

Post by lisplist »

ramon156 wrote: post #34
shevy-java wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before Github course corrects I think the problem is that Microsoft committed to AI totally. There is no way back for them. And this also means that Github will suffer from this. Microsoft PR will tell people that AI is the solution to everything, but in reality it will lead to problems that keep on coming up again and again. Now, people may say "but Github services being down, does not have anything directly to do…

They can support hosting your own git instance through their platform. That would imo be more interesting. You keep your code, run your runners, but don't get bombarded with bots

this is called GitHub Enterprise, but apparently that's mostly on life support

Re: If I could make my own GitHub

#90

Post by DANmode »

stavros wrote: post #73
DANmode wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s super cool. If no post planned, please consider - that’s very “an app is a home cooked meal”, and I love it.

I could write something, but it would be "I told Claude to do this and it did, I'm happy", there isn't really much more detail to write about. What would you like to see?

I’ve seen a few posts just like that ^_^

It’s mostly your original story of motivation, in brief prose, that does the heavy lifting of a satisfying post,

followed by exactly what spec and names of tools you used, mundane as they may feel,

your exact prompt(s) (because this is of technical interest in and of itself),

and screenshots of excerpts/link to output.

Things that stood out to you along the way would also stand out to others.

The comment alone will probably be the most intriguing one I read all day.

Post reply on HN