Hacker News Reader

Comment by capitainenemo | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunate that the redesign broke all links to the old entries (which, since they've been around for decades are on quite a few sites - wikipedia for example) without redirects, and now requires using a javascript capable browser to view the entries on github (github having removed non-JS access last year).

View on HN

I guess the JS-free way to access would be `git clone`

yep. certainly occurred to me. not the most practical if you just wanted to look at a single file, and still breaks the legacy links. BTW, they also made JS required to get the "clone" link off their website, although you can of course guess it most of the time.

In any case, wasn't using w3m/lynx this time, so just whitelisted the 2 domains github requires.

> you can of course guess it most of the time

In what scenarios is a GitHub clone URL ever different from what one what “guess”?

I’m genuinely curious — all of the GitHub git clone URLs I’ve encountered were the exact same format. (https://github.com/$user/$repository with an optional “.git” at the end of the URL)

Github pages hosted content. But of course that was just a minor digression from the main disappointments WRT their change.

I remember being annoyed that some project which had its name changed - an action that Github gives much warnings about - still had its clone URL as the former name of the project. This was a while ago, I don't remember the details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com