
Improving the GitHub Workflow for the Microsoft Community - gjtorikian
https://github.com/blog/1989-improving-the-github-workflow-for-the-microsoft-community
======
aceperry
Looks like a step in the right direction, where a lot of other developers
already are. When they were pushing TFS, I didn't know if it was a 'me too'
kind of move, or an attempt to provide an MS proprietary solution, or what.
But getting in step with a lot of other developers, and hopefully playing
nice, will get them a seat at the table with all developers, instead of
projecting an attitude of: the world revolves around us. MS has been making
some remarkable announcements at this Build conference, and making it easier
for developers to get into MS technologies as well. This is a much better
approach than when Ballmer was CEO.

------
ripberge
I guess the biggest functionality here is the ability to create repositories
easier from within VS?

Because Visual Studio already has very good integration with git. I probably
only use git from the command line once every couple of months.

~~~
mariusmg
Yeah, not sure about this either. What's exactly the point in having that
Github UI in VS ?

A IDE is for writing code not integrating all kind of crap into it......

~~~
dragonwriter
I'm pretty sure "integrating all kind of crap into it" is the distinction
between an _integrated_ development environment and other environments for
writing code, like a simple programmer's editor (though the line is somewhat
fuzzy, and programmer's editors _also_ tend to integrate all kind of stuff,
and provide extension points to integrate more.)

------
hm8
GitHub gearing for a Microsoft acquisition OR am I reading too much?

~~~
chimeracoder
Probably reading too much, in this case.

But since you mention it it'd make a lot of sense for Microsoft to want to buy
Github.

Microsoft has been doing a _lot_ of cool stuff engineering-wise in recent
years. They've released so many FOSS projects I've lost track[0]. But they
still suffer from a problem of being "uncool" because of their past
reputation. Which was deserved, but they've changed a _lot_ [1]. Microsoft
needs a new brand for their FOSS work, because the Microsoft brand is badly
tainted in the FOSS world.

Github is one of the few companies that could earn them respect in the FOSS
world if they were to acquire them (and of course, not screw everything up).

[0] Heck, I've literally lost track of the number of FOSS things they've
released _this week_

[1] Fifteen years ago, could you imagine Microsoft hosting a launch party for
Debian? Because that's what they did this last weekend:
[http://openness.microsoft.com/blog/2015/04/21/microsoft-
debi...](http://openness.microsoft.com/blog/2015/04/21/microsoft-
debian-8-linuxfest/)

~~~
click170
IMO it would tarnish Github more than it would redeem Microsoft.

You don't become cool by buying the cool new gadget-of-the-week just as you
don't become cool by buying a cool company.

Ill be comfortable calling them cool when they've demonstrated they no longer
follow Embrace Extend Extinguish but until then they don't deserve the benefit
of the doubt.

As far as I'm concerned they realized they tried to move to fast into the
extinguishing phase so they're taking a step back into the extend phase. Im
not falling for it.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Ill be comfortable calling them cool when they've demonstrated they no
> longer follow Embrace Extend Extinguish but until then they don't deserve
> the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying that Microsoft _doesn 't_ still have this intention to some
degree. It's impossible to prove a negative, especially for such a large and
fragmented company.

But it's inconsistent that Microsoft still receives so much hate for having
practice this a decade ago, when there are companies that are literally doing
it today, in the plain light of day, in very large ways, and receiving far
less criticism than Microsoft does.

I say all this as a Linux user typing in Iceweasel from a Debian machine that
has no non-free software on it except the wifi driver. I have no love for
Microsoft or proprietary software, but they still receive so much criticism
that it crowds out criticism of other companies that are just as bad _today_
(or even worse) compared to Microsoft _today_.

~~~
clinta
I agree. In fact I think github is doing more to extend and extinguish. They
are the ones who just introduced their own proprietary closed method of binary
storage while git-annex was already there.

~~~
icey
If you're talking about Git-LFS, it's open source:
[https://github.com/github/git-lfs](https://github.com/github/git-lfs)

The API spec is available here: [https://github.com/github/git-
lfs/blob/master/docs/api.md](https://github.com/github/git-
lfs/blob/master/docs/api.md)

There's a reference implementation here: [https://github.com/github/lfs-test-
server](https://github.com/github/lfs-test-server)

------
apalmer
Cool, Microsoft is a beast when focused. Wonder how long it will last.

~~~
perdunov
It's almost surreal to see that one of the douchiest companies around is so
radically transforming.

~~~
nine_k
Maybe MS desktop OS division was sort of douche, or maybe desktop MS office is
not all that innovative.

OTOH, MS Research was always very cool (and they started contributing to e.g.
OpenBSD many years ago), OS kernel has always been much better than a glance
over win32 API shows you, and Office365 is definitely world-class.

I suspect that the engineering culture in MS has always been rather good (with
engineers like you and me, and many of them a good deal better); the radical
transformation is probably mostly within the top management.

~~~
hirsin
The kernel is _very cool_. I get to work near it, and their description of the
NT multi-headed setup helped change my mind about Microsoft engineering. e.g.
the POSIX subsystem is just another NT usermode head, so it's incredibly
performant.

~~~
beagle3
I am not up to date on the latest kernels - I last wrote an NT driver in 2002
(Win2K/XP compatible), but based on that experience I beg to differ.

My no-stalgia: It was an overengineered beast at the time, with an original
grand vision that wasn't performing well enough, and seemed to be fixed with
duct tape.

The Video Driver + GDI, originally conceived to be outside the kernel, was too
slow - so it was moved back in, causing a lot of problems.

The IO subsystem was nicely abstracted with IRPs. Except it was too slow, so
they added the "FastPath" interface, which fixed the speed but made it
impossible to safely unload or stack drivers. IIRC, they were the main reason
for the "PlugFest" parties, where microsoft would invite vendors to come to
place and then install their drivers in random orders and to debug the
collisions -- the fact that microsoft needed to organize these parties is an
indication of how bad it was.

The POSIX subsystem was removed in XP/Server 2002. Perhaps you mean SFU? That
was discontinued in 2004. Oh, you mean SUA (nee Interix). Well, that was
removed in 8.1.

And your experience might be different, but "incredibly performant" is quite
the opposite of my experience with the POSIX subsystem.

~~~
hirsin
You certainly work(ed) closer than I do, my experiences are mostly based off
of what I see around me. I assume the kernel has changed quite a bit since
Vista. I imagine that the POSIX system hasn't been entirely killed off quite
yet, given it's already come back twice.

~~~
beagle3
The POSIX subsystem was never there for technical reasons. It was there for
political reasons - back in the day, a lot of government and army contracts
mandated a POSIX system, so Microsoft made sure they comply with the letter of
the law. (The intended spirit of the law was to require a standard OS to avoid
vendor lock in....)

And they've been trying to remove it since that political requirement was off
the table. Except it turns out that it was actually in used by some customers,
so they keep bringing subsets back.

------
robotnoises
Cool!

Forgive me, but what is the advantage of buying Github enterprise and then
having it hosted in Azure? I was under the impression that most enterprise
customers were interested in self hosting.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Azure is self hosting. If you have on-prem, it makes sense to host on physical
gear, but most startups aren't at that phase of their lifecycle. GHE vs GitHub
for me is a data lifecycle decision, and even with GHE on Azure, you have more
control over your data than in public GitHub.

Influencing factors can be regulatory, policy, SLA, that sort of thing. A
prior employer had a blanket policy against intellectual property in a public
service no matter the security, for example. GitHub has reliability issues
lately as well.

One practical thing I've heard is that it's really easy to accidentally make a
repo public on GitHub (I agree).

~~~
willthames
Another example is the regulatory requirement for data sovereignty to ensure
data remains under the data protection laws of the organisation's country.

With hosted Github you have no choice - data will presumably live on mainland
US. With Azure/AWS/whatever, you can host your data in the most suitable
location (always worth checking the contracts though)

