GitHub launches Pull Requests 2.0 | Hacker News Reader

GitHub launches Pull Requests 2.0

github.com

204 pointskneath38 comments

For me, github is git's killer application. I wouldn't be using git if I couldn't pair it with github.

I've gotten to the point that I will often choose a different library if the one I'm looking at isn't already on github because their interface is so nice for browsing code (not to mention finding useful forks).

Me too. I'll tolerate Google Code or whatever if I know the library is good, but if I'm just googling for stuff (well, duck duck going), I'm a lot more likely to say "eh, let's keep looking" if it's not on github.

I think this is because a project being on github is a huge signal of "I care about my project" which I want if I'm going to be leaning on it for my project.

Like they say, you can always tell if a google code project is active if it says "we've moved to github..."

Github just needs a "Google Groups" without the spam and they're set.

Why is being on github a "huge signal" that they care? They're pushing code into the wild, giving it away for free and actively maintaining it - who cares where they host it if the code is good code?

I'm getting really disturbed at this "if it's not on github it doesn't exist" meme. In the past it was "if it's not on sourceforge it doesn't exist" - what's next?

If the code is good code, then it's good code. You're right about that and I certainly don't go around thinking "If it's not on github, it's bad code."

However, Github makes it very easy to inspect both the source code and the activity around the project. To me, the community that is developing around github is just as important as the code. I don't find that disturbing. I also like what Bitbucket is doing for what it's worth.

Sourceforge, Google Code and a lot of other hosted solutions rely on advertising to make money. They're trying to sell clicks from a click-averse audience and it affects the service. Github is paid for by developers who want great tools. I won't hold it against a development group for picking something other than github but I think developers who want good tools will migrate there. I won't miss sourceforge. If it were merely a fashion trend, I would agree with you but I think github fundamentally changes the way you interact with code.

Perhaps: "click-averse audience"?

Yes, thank you. Although now I'm trying to figure out what click-adversity would be.

Finger cramps? Finger braces? Carpal tunnel?

Sidenote: Google Code doesn't seem to have ads.

You're right, I stand corrected. I was thinking of Google Groups which is related but not the same thing.

So what would you be using for source code control for your projects?

I'm in the same boat here. The only reason I use git is for github -- for work or collaborating with other people on something. And even then, unless I need branching, I'll still use Mercurial, through the hg-git plugin they provide[1].

Nothing against people who use git. If it works for you, use it. I don't like it because of its arcane incantations and tendency to let me destroy my work for the past few hours by using the wrong command. The features are great. But, not what I'm looking for in a DVCS. But, thats just me.

1. http://hg-git.github.com/

> [...] and tendency to let me destroy my work for the past few hours by using the wrong command.

I have the same misgivings about Mercurial. I guess it depends on what you are used to. Conceptually git and Mercurial are isomorphic. (See http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GitConcepts for an explanation.)

CVS?

Why?

While none of the popular DVCS's perfectly match my normal workflow, bazaar is usually the closest. i see the power of git, but i don't really need its particular power bits and i find both mercurial and bazaar easier to work with.

Just curious, how don't they match your workflow, and what about Git's power features gets in your way? You can just not use things like interactive rebase if you don't want.

I didnt say that git's power features get in my way. I said I don't need most of them and I find other DCVSs easier to work with. Git can fit in with my workflow just fine except for one thing... I find it overly complicated. I find fossil, bazaar and mercurial all easier to work with. And part of my workflow is 'not overly complicated'. For me, git is a constant battle to remember how to do things.

The only thing that could make github more awesome in my eyes would be if it was open source. While a lot of work has gone into gitorious, it seems like they are just playing catchup to some extent with github.

Much of GitHub already is.

While the site isn't open-source, they have open-sourced a ton of code. Just to name a few:

http://github.com/github

http://github.com/defunkt/resque

http://github.com/mojombo/jekyll

http://github.com/mojombo/god

http://github.com/mojombo/bert

http://github.com/mojombo/grit

Yep, and they also put together awesome blog posts about how all those pieces tie together: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=895072

I guess I'm a bit of an OSS hippie, but I wish that too. But, having a business model means we can focus all of our time on this. We're able to do more for open source this way.

Also: GitHub has released a bunch of open source (as others have added). One of the other things I like is that details of the architecture are discussed openly. When I joined GitHub a few months ago, I was shocked at how much I already knew about how things worked.

I've thought long and hard about open source and business for a while, and I think you're probably right. I think the best thing going right now for OS is a "pyramid", where all the infrastructure and supporting bits and pieces are open source, and the tip of the pyramid is the differentiator that makes the money. It may rankle some not to get access to that, but by being closed, you can make a lot of money to funnel back into the open source projects you use and support.

If GitHub was open source, we wouldn't be able to make money to hire people to make awesome features. An Open Source GitHub would without a doubt be a much worse experience for everyone.

It would probably look more like Gitorious does.

Gitorious is 8 million time better than rolling your own git hosting, but GitHub is so much more polished. I think a large part of that is because Gitorious is open source, so there's nobody dedicated to it as a full-time job. Whereas you guys have a handful of developers working night and day on creating pure awesome.

You guys rock.

You obviously understand your situation much better than I do, but don't you think that one of Github's big differentiators at this point is the network effect? Sure if you open sourced the whole site someone could put up a clone, but without Github's enormous community it'd be difficult for them to gain any traction.

I think the GitHub folks were misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "rarrgh! github really is stupid for not being foss!" I'm not even leaning in that direction. I totally understand the business model. The only concern I have is not being able to take my data with me if I leave and you guys recently addressed that to some extent with the new wiki system. I think ya'll do great work.

Thanks!

We do our best to balance features, stability and ubiquity. We consider your data your data, not ours. We've been working on increasing ways to export your data out of GitHub — the new wikis being the latest example — and have a lot of plans on continuing that trend into the future, both through our API and through other efforts.

I love git, and I love github, but I honestly have not found any of the "mangle your repos through our website" features of github compelling. Perhaps it's because I don't have projects with hundreds of watchers, a couple dozen forks, and a pull request coming in every day. I just feel a lot more comfortable working with my repos on my own machine(s), with the CLI git commands. I can do what I want locally, and I have full control over any mangling or bungling, as well as whether or not said bungling gets pushed to what is often the official repo for the project (namely, the github repo of the project).

I really like GitHub and I know Fogbugz/Kiln is more expensive but the code review features and bug tracking stuff in FogBugz/Kiln is just so well done.

The UI and interaction is so much more polished than anything else out there. Certainly more so than GitHub, Bitbucket and JIRA. If you are a business I think it's well worth the extra money. I even use it for my personal stuff.

I'd love to see any screenshots or features that you find valuable. Feel free to throw anything at kyle@github.com that you want (rants appreciated)

What features in Kiln and Fogbugz?

I use JIRA at work.. bleeeeeeeggggghhhh.

Looks like I'm going to have to leave BitBucket. Features like these are just too compelling...

This is the final straw. I've been considering convincing my work to switch to git + GitHub, but I've just written up my proposal and I'm pitching it tomorrow, this is too awesome to pass up.

Please post your experiences. Some co-workers and me are considering a similar pitch.

Github is just so awesome. They really nailed making code social. You really get the feeling of participating in a living, breathing thing with Github. It compels you to collaborate. It's frictionless.

Every other hosted RCS just feels hopelessly static, a step above a download.com.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com