GitHub adds support for nested organization teams
github.com
github.com
Finally.
> Membership inheritance from parent to child teams isn't automatic. If you're a member of Engineering and someone creates a child team called Security, team members of Engineering aren't automatically direct team members of Security.
Ok that was worded weirdly, but it makes sense. I think the wording of "parent" and "child" teams is confusing, "super" and "sub" teams is much clearer, and it makes perfect sense that when you create a subteam it starts empty, the opposite would be completely broken since the entire point of subteams would be to increase access rights.
One thing they did not touch upon though: can you be a member of a team and one of its subteams? (that would be somewhat annoying).
"organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations" -https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Conway%27s_law
Can you please add:
1. Bulk team adding/editing. From https://github.com/orgs/[org]/people, add the ability to select multiple people and add them on a team. I do this via a script, but I don't like doing it that way. Also, a better way of finding who is NOT in a specific team, i.e. filter by users who are not in the "staff" team.
2. A special team which has everyone in it by default
3. A way of contacting everyone in a team without resorting to adding everyone to a specific team, giving that team write access, creating an issue and/or @mentioning everyone.
Git is decentralized. Why do you need github?
Everything can be summed up with the word "social". Permissions, connections between people, notifications, contacts, etc etc.
Social is not decentralized today. Even though money already is, publishing is, version control is.
That's the reason we accept such posts as "wow thanks".
Imagine if something like Wordpress existed which let you run your own social network and easily put together the exact permission rules you need for your organization. Let you do everything in that post, but open source and free w plugins?
I thought back in 2011 there should be something like this. So I'm building it: https://qbix.com/platform
Don't beg, just install it and configure your own social network to do what your organization needs.
Decentralized or not, someone has to actually build the features, and that's still a reason to thank them. A framework is cool and all, but doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes the job easier.
The same thing with the App Stores and other things. So thankful that our latest version wasn't rejected for competing with Twitter or Apple or whatever. Yes, they built it. But that's phase 1. It's way better when it's an open source platform and no one gatekeeper to deal with.
Are you grateful you can wear a blue shirt? Or that now finally they'll play your song on a radio?
It's not about hostility towards github or anyone in particular. It's just pointing out (using the vernacular many geeks use to exaggerate a point) the ridiculousness of "we finally let you have sub groups" and "ok but please please add this feature".
Bitcoin will decentralize money and you won't be grateful that a bank lets you pay someone without a problem.
The web decentralized publishing and you aren't begging someone to please publish your story with a video so your friends can read it. It's just a market.
Same here. Centralization in social holding back progress by a lot, and preventing people from getting things done in the real world, and leads to business models to suck people into spending more time posting cat videos and commenting on politics and exacerbates their echo chambers until they hate each other, because they think they only have two choices for President etc etc. And what's the next big thing? VR. Suck them into even more virtual reality and monetize their time. Well, I could be a little mad -- not at the players but the rules of the game. Decentralize. Change the rules.
Don't like my platform? Use another! But host your own social network!
You want more geek-vitriol? Here it is from a famous source:
Look, at my job we self-host Gitlab CE. It's 100% Free Software and we could implement all the features we want without asking them a damn thing. Yet I still have asked them to "please add this feature".
It has nothing to do with being Free Software or not, but with asking them to do actual work in implementing the feature.
1) Add it yourself
2) Pay someome who is an expert with Gitlab CE code, maybe even certified as expert but doesn't work for GitLab CE.
3) Buy a plugin made by someone on a marketplace, which has reviews, maybe passed a security audit, etc.
In short, I am not saying no one has to charge anything. I'm saying that in an open ecosystem there would be plenty of options. You don't thank wordpress they finally let you add analytics or privacy to your wordpress blog, like you would with blogger.com back in the day. You may still have to pay for the plugin BUT you don't have to wait for an overworked Automattic to build it. You have an entire ecosystem.
And to take it one step further, with open standards you can then have multiple platforms out there to choose from, which can all work with each other.
It's the new opium for the masses
Same for organizations, where I work we now have hundreds of repos in a flat structure. Impossible to manage.
(I'd like hierarchical repos for both users and orgs.)
Now, if only you could have a hierarchy of organizations. If you have a large company, it'd be helpful to have github.com/companyname/someinitiative/{project,project2,anotherproject} , rather than a single organization containing hundreds of projects.
What is the value-add of Github this days, really? I mean for companies, why pay for github when you can have an internal gitlab instance?