
Announcing new tools, forums, and features - joshmanders
https://github.com/blog/2256-a-whole-new-github-universe-announcing-new-tools-forums-and-features
======
old-gregg
This is the example of how hard it can be for companies, especially successful
companies, to alter their course even slightly.

Github success was about making code repositories pretty and social. But this
is no longer enough to keep evolving as a company of their size. Yet the
internal product DNA still revolves around repos, so as a result, issues,
wikis and now Projects (!) live under a single repository.

This is backward.

A project is a way to group resources to achieve a predefined goal. Those
resources include multiple people, multiple issues and _multiple
repositories_. Sticking a project under a repository makes no sense.

In fact, a code repository in most organizations is a fairly small and an
insignificant asset, just another way to organize code, i.e. function ->
module -> directory -> repository, etc. It's quite awkward to think of what
your company is doing in terms of repositories, so anything Github adds to
repos feels out of place by default.

Another example of repository-centric thinking is the homepage of
[https://github.com](https://github.com) itself when a user is logged in. It's
the most important page of all, yet nothing on it has any relevance to me:
just a list of people I like starring random repos. Same thing for the
organization home page, just a list of repos, again.

The Project idea is great. It had the potential to solve all of these issues
by giving me a tool to organize digital assets in a way that's important to
me. But sticking it under a repository killed it.

[EDIT] It's easy to be me and be posting a comment like this, telling
successful people what to do. But it's enormously hard to have a large team of
PMs, developers and designers, all of whom are smart and ambitious
individuals, to actually do something that falls outside of the settled way of
doing things. Kudos to Github founders and employees for getting it this far
and congratulations on dealing with big company problems ;)

~~~
sytse
I agree that putting projects under repositories looks counterintuitive. In
BitBucket you have multiple repositories under one project
[https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucket/projects-79249795...](https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucket/projects-792497956.html)

We at GitLab are trying to keep it simple by having only one repository, one
wiki, one issue tracker, one CD pipeline, and one set of milestones per
project. Projects always below to a group. We aggregate on the group level,
for example issues [https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-
org/issues](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/issues), merge requests
[https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-
org/merge_requests](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/merge_requests) and
milestones
[https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/milestones.html#groups-a...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/milestones.html#groups-
and-milestones)

There are several things we're still considering to solve this problem better,
comments are very welcome:

1\. Multi project pipelines [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-
ce/issues/17069](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/17069)

2\. Group level issue boards [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-
ee/issues/928](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/928)

3\. Nested groups [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-
ce/issues/2772](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/2772)

~~~
tyre
Meta-comment: As a founder and engineer, I used to give a lot of shit to
Social Media as a growth channel.

GitLab staff are "on point" by commenting on anything relevant to their
industry (code creation/management) where their target customers are (HN).

To other founders, this is what good marketing looks like.

~~~
sytse
Thanks Chris. It is a tricky balance not being too noisy (I understand the
sentiment of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12502468](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12502468)
) but I tried to add to the conversation by by sharing our thoughts about the
project <=> repo dilemma.

~~~
marklgr
I thought HN frowned on metacomments, and here it goes, talking about GitLab
again, in a Github topic...

~~~
dijit
I'm in no way affiliated with gitlab, but I do like the product.

But the facts are such:

1) GitLab is a YCombinator incubated company.

2) GitLab and GitHub are direct competitors

3) It's almost always relevant to the discussion, in this case; "How could it
be done differently, how /has/ it been done differently"

In this case I think it's fair to bring up the direct comparison of github and
gitlab. The only thing I would say could improve the situation was having
github representation on here too.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I enjoy threads like these; this is how _healthy competition_ looks like.
GitLab peoples' comments are relevant, and their discuss technical issues and
merits of _their_ solution, instead of comparing to GitHub ("we're better than
the competitor!").

If this is how all marketing would always look like, I wouldn't hate it like I
now do.

------
captn3m0
This is a rough summary of what all I read in the blog post:

1\. projects. replaces trello, waffle.io, zenhub and many other similar
services.

2\. code reviews allow approval/request changes as sunny's screenshot shows

3\. reviews can be made mandatory.

4\. github platform integrations is getting a roadmap

5\. a graphql api to query their database

6\. enforce 2fa in organizations (much love for this one)

7\. summarized timeline for your contibutions

Just a few days back, at the GitLab release, I'd noticed a lot of complains
about gitlab releasing useful and impactful features and github being slow on
releases. Moreover, now with a public roadmap (even if it is just for
platforms), it is a great start.

I'm really liking this change in pace.

mods: Can we make this the canonical discussion for this topic? Otherwise, a
lot of branching will happen

~~~
elliotec
I agree with you that the pick up in pace of Github's lacking features has
been phenomenal, and I don't really quite understand all the love of GitLab
except rooting for the underdog. Github is the clear industry leader, has been
since essentially it's creation. It is very fast and feature-filled. It is the
central location for the vast majority of code I use and see. Since the open
letter to Github with the complaints of feature requests, they've really
stepped up their game and made competitors really non-starters from my point
of view.

~~~
markdog12
> I don't really quite understand all the love of GitLab

\- ___Open Source_ __

\- Free private repos

\- Free self-host (edit to add "Free")

\- Everything in one spot (repos, ci, review, coding environment, etc...)

~~~
elliotec
It's only kind of open source, and only partly. They call it open core, so
saying open source outright is a bit misleading.

The review feature is very new in GL, and that plus all of the things you are
mentioning within "everything in one spot" is available in this update (except
maybe the coding env, not sure what that means anyway), if you've read the
announcement. Github also has self hosting.

~~~
nchelluri
Where can I find a link about self hosted Github? Just curious to read about
it.

~~~
jfim
It's github enterprise:
[https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing](https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing)

~~~
nchelluri
Thanks. I was unaware this existed. Looks like it was launched in 2011[1].
Somehow I thought that with their (presumably, from what little I've gathered
over the years) complex infrastructure setup this would be hard or impossible.
I wonder if they have an Enterprise team devoted to keeping up with a SaaS
mainline and how much work they have to do, or if they made/make some
decisions that make this (Enterprise) a fairly self-contained "it just works"
sort of thing.

[1] [https://github.com/blog/978-introducing-github-
enterprise](https://github.com/blog/978-introducing-github-enterprise)

~~~
moby
Hi there - GitHub Enterprise definitely has a devoted team focused on building
features tailored to the needs of customers requiring/requesting an on-premise
solution, as well as making it entirely self-contained. We typically release a
new version of GitHub Enterprise on a quarterly basis - you can see the latest
additions we shipped with GitHub Enterprise 2.7 here:
[https://enterprise.github.com/releases/2.7.0/notes](https://enterprise.github.com/releases/2.7.0/notes)

We have companies scaling their GitHub Enterprise instance up to 25,000 users,
and we also have a dedicated Enterprise Support team available 24/5 to resolve
any technical issues.

~~~
nchelluri
Thanks for the answer straight from the horse's mouth! I'd often heard about
companies storing their code on GH and didn't understand how they could get
away with using a SaaS app available on a public cloud; now I know, they can
just run a self-hosted version on their own private network.

I am not your target market, FWIW, but just a curious developer.

~~~
moby
No worries - glad to provide the additional details!

We also recognize that having a SaaS solution like GitHub Organizations meets
the needs of many companies (over 75,000 at last count), and our announcement
of 2FA enhancements today is an indication of our desire to continue that
approach.

------
sgarrity
Some nice improvements here. It appears, though, that Projects suffer from the
same problem we've had with Issues: they are limited to one repo.

I know there are some tools to manage Issues across repos, but for the most
part, the tools seem to assume you work on only one repo, or that milestones
only affect a single repo.

I would love to see projects/milestones become more capable when dealing with
cross-repo issues.

~~~
rogerbinns
This has been why we don't use github's issues, wikis, and why we won't use
their projects. For example if the overall product has a web site repo, server
repo, iOS repo and an Android repo then they need to be used as a coherent
whole. An issue might be reported against iOS but the cause is in the server,
so the ticket would need to be moved. Rinse and repeat for all the other
interactions of piece, and that collaborators often don't know (and shouldn't
need to) precisely what issues, wikis etc correspond to which repo.

The now defunct Google Code had a very good solution for this. You could
create additional "sub" repositories alongside the "main" one. Github already
does that for the wiki, but doesn't generalise it to allowing additional ones.
I'm somewhat convinced this is because github has the whole "charge by the
repository" model, which is at odds for being useful for projects that require
multiple git level repos.

~~~
dr_win
I would put all projects under one repo as orphan branches. With some branch-
naming conventions you can easily separate those.

~~~
yosyp
Imagine you just hired a new web developer, and added him to this repo. His
first local repo clone will include 3 entire projects for iOS, Android, and
backend server, that he has no use for, or should even have permissions to
access in the first place.

This sounds like a security nightmare, that also significantly impacts local
update times and makes for a huge repo.

~~~
vernon99
So companies like Fb (with their gazillions of files) can afford a single repo
and you hiring a new developer cannot?

------
bsimpson
I'll be curious to see if they've made API granularity more sane.

We haven't been able to use any third party tools because our security people
don't feel great about giving third parties write access to everything
(including our source) for tools that don't need it. In the past, GitHub
hasn't differentiated write access to issues (which many tools need) and write
access to the source itself (which basically nothing should need).

~~~
web007
Plus a million - I'm not sure how this still isn't a feature.

Considering all of the PCI-DSS / HIPAA / SOX / etc. audit points around change
control (even ignoring corporate versions of the same) it's practically
impossible to add external services to GH and have them be useful while still
meeting compliance. Change control is required, but that also implies control
of change control. As-is any service could delete all of your content, whether
intentionally or inadvertently, or even worse could corrupt or otherwise alter
your history.

It may be detectable and recoverable because git, but it would be infinitely
easier to have code and PR be r--rw-.

EDIT: This is now a thing, according to @bhuga below. Also, GH is now
publishing a roadmap for what's coming down the pipe, so we're not in the dark
as to when these critically-important-why-isnt-it-out-yet features are being
worked on. [https://developer.github.com/early-access/platform-
roadmap/](https://developer.github.com/early-access/platform-roadmap/)

------
makecheck
I’m not sure if the name “project” is a good choice here.

For one, GitHub still has some pages that refer to the idea of creating
projects on GitHub, except those aren’t referring to these new kinds of
“projects” (they actually are referring to new repositories or new accounts or
something).

And, there are literally over a million repositories that have the name
Project or Project somewhere in their name[1] so you can now create projects
within things that are already called Projects (except the “projects” act more
like issues, or tasks, or _something_ ).

Naming is important, there’s a reason why engineers devote so much time to it.

[1]
[https://github.com/search?p=1&q=project&type=Repositories&ut...](https://github.com/search?p=1&q=project&type=Repositories&utf8=%E2%9C%93)

~~~
the_duke
I agree, Projects is a poor choice, in my opinion.

Some alternatives that randomly come to mind: "Boards", "Plan", "Plans",
"Tasks".

------
scrollaway
Impressive. I have to think that this is all competition fostered by Gitlab -
all those features were present in Gitlab. Competition at work :)

~~~
imsodrunklol
I have been a huge pusher for GitLab, and my basic reasoning was that GitHub
isn't open sourced like GitLab. GitHub was going awfully slow and no
communication to its customers in new features. Looks like GitLab lit a fire
underneath them. I wonder which one is "better". Nevertheless, at least there
is competition now. SCM is the biggest component in any coding practices, I'm
that it is finally getting attention.

~~~
midwestcode
Hopefully the community forum will help GitHub to keep in touch with the
community!

------
dasmoth
There's some nice stuff here -- probably some of it that I'll use -- but most
of this is targeted at organisations (and in particular, managers and
administrators) rather than individual developers.

Understandable -- it's clearly companies that are paying the bills these days
-- but a little disappointing given the extent to which GitHub got big by
attracting lone hackers and little open source projects.

If somebody else manages to claim the small-scale end if the market it could
eventually spell trouble for GitHub.

~~~
PieterH
This isn't a random shift in direction for github... in the end it will make
the platform so complex and irrelevant for open source teams that they will go
elsewhere. I wrote an analysis of this shift some time back:
[http://hintjens.com/blog:111](http://hintjens.com/blog:111)

------
BinaryIdiot
The review stuff is semi similar to what I requested GitLab do and I'm
surprised it's taken so long for anyone to really do it. It's a great
workflow. I'm still not convinced about keeping all of your project's
management in the version control system (I mean I prefer issues in there but
the rest seems...wrong to me for whatever biased reason I have).

Overall looks good! When does Enterprise get these features? :)

~~~
moby
We're glad you like it! This is the first of many Code Review enhancements
we'll be providing, so stay tuned.

These features will be coming to GitHub Enterprise soon - we always aim to get
new features onto the Enterprise platform on the next major release (which
occurs every 3 months on average).

------
reustle
My team and I played around with Projects for a little bit and these are
things that were blockers / annoyances for us from moving away from trello.
I'm posting because I know some GH people are reading these comments.

\- Mobile support: Trello mobile app is great, projects web doesn't even
resize for mobile.

\- Slack support: Card Created notifications

\- Easier “card” preview: Projects requires you to go to a new page to view a
card

\- Projects (1): This little "1" will always be 1. At least with PRs and
Issues it means something (pending tasks, etc).

\- Limited to one repo

I also found it funny that they call it "notes" as in "add note" "delete note"
etc, but there is a menu item on each card that says "Copy Card URL". Maybe
they renamed from "cards" to "notes" mid development? :)

------
prh8
I'd really like it if the Pull Requests page would denote which PRs I've
already approved. That is one thing I really liked from Bitbucket, it makes it
easy to skip over what I've already approved. It would become slightly more
complex though, because then you'd probably want to see something for PRs
you've approved but had subsequent changes on.

~~~
moby
Great feedback point here - I've passed it along to our Engineering team.

~~~
prh8
Thank you! Can I make one more request? I'd love to be able to see merge
conflicts from the diff page (also like BB does).

Knowing the conflict is just db/schema version instead of something more
problematic-- that is especially handy when used in conjunction with various
target branches.

i.e. I know <another-feature> branch is about to be merged before right before
<my-branch> gets merged. Then, I can know what I'm going to have to fix
quickly without having to go back to terminal, fetch <another-feature>, merge
<my-branch>, just to find the conflicts. Yes, I have to do that with master
after it's merged anyways, but I find it great to see quickly and at a glance
beforehand.

~~~
moby
Certainly - thanks for that! I've included it here.

We're aiming to monitor this board as much as possible, but if there other
feature asks that come up, feel free to connect with our Support team -
they're also available to take your feature asks and report them to our
Engineering team.

~~~
prh8
A couple days ago I noticed that the status box on the PR page now includes a
list of conflicted files. Not sure if that was in any way related to my
request here, but wanted to thank you if it was. That is very helpful.

------
mintplant
Was really hoping "forums" would mean users could add dedicated discussion
boards to repositories.

------
toddsiegel
If anyone from Github reads this, a) this looks great, b) add project
templates please, so we don't have to recreate the same columns every time.
Thanks. <3

~~~
jglovier
Great idea. Thanks!

~~~
toddsiegel
While I have your attention. A few thoughts on code reviews. It's be nice if
1) approvals somehow show up on the pull requests index page, 2) create a
notification within GH, 3) send an email. Right now you have to go to the PR
page itself to see approvals.

Edit: I saw an approval email notification on one PR, but not another.

Thanks!

~~~
reustle
+1 for seeing approvals visually on the pull request index page. I currently
use a "Reviewed" label with my team, and unfortunately we still have to even
with this feature.

------
dham
I'm actually really interested in the tech stack they used to make these new
features. Specifically Projects. No latest and greatest framework or anything
of that caliber. Just plain PJAX which is what everything else they have done
uses. That's pretty cool to me. Looks like a pretty strong engineering culture
of using stuff that works, instead of the shiniest object at the moment in
time.

------
Mizza
The inconsistent and non-sensical font and white space on the new profile
pages is giving me an indescribable form of anxiety. If anybody out from the
GH design team is out there, please put it back to how it was. :(.

Example: [https://github.com/Miserlou](https://github.com/Miserlou)

10 font sizes is too many for any one page.

~~~
voaie
Just report it: [https://github.com/contact](https://github.com/contact)

------
Hovertruck
Batch review has been my #1 most desired feature for Github for many years
now. This is great!

~~~
rsanheim
Thanks! It has been on our list for a long time as well, excited to get it
shipped.

------
cdnsteve
Finally, Github getting some Love! Can't wait to switch to Projects and wave
Goodbye Jira. I'm a happy dev today.

~~~
joshmanders
Indeed, when GitLab announced Kanban I tried to migrate, but it just wasn't as
great as GitHub, this is the nail in my foot that keeps me at GitHub.

~~~
sytse
What can we improve in GitLab that would have convinced you to stay?

~~~
joshmanders
Hey styse! You guys are doing great, don't get me wrong, every time I try you
guys out, leaps and bounds. My two biggest things right now are CI docs are
very very sparse and hard to figure out as they are not similar to typical CI
systems, at least the ones I used (primarily Travis). And the design is very
unusual, it's hard to navigate around. For example on GitHub I can click my
profile and boom, all repositories right there, on gitlab, i got to go through
projects, groups and all this other stuff, it's just not straight forward.

------
klodolph
A minor nit: the commit graph full of green squares should not be encouraged.
I don't think that kind of behavior is healthy.

------
berns
Another Discourse forum. I was sceptical that the Discourse style of forum
would become popular. Too complex and heavy, specially for mobile. I must
admit that it's looking very good and is very usable.

------
tav
If anyone from GitHub reads this, it would be great if you could use Task
Lists [1] within Notes, e.g.

    
    
        Note Title.
    
        - [ ] Some subtask.
        - [x] Another subtask.
    

You could then group subtasks within a single note and tick them off as you go
without having to edit the note every time. Cheers and thank you for the
fantastic new features!

[1] [https://github.com/blog/1375-task-lists-in-gfm-issues-
pulls-...](https://github.com/blog/1375-task-lists-in-gfm-issues-pulls-
comments)

~~~
moby
Reading, and passing that feedback along to our Engineering team. Thanks!

------
avitzurel
Batched review and pending state have both been a long time coming.

Most of the times when I do a review it's not a single comment and right now
the workflow is to let the team know on Slack that I am reviewing this.

From the Gif it's not 100% clear what the pending state does but I would want
something like blocking the PR until every team member that started reviewing
will "release" the PR. I also see the negative side of this of course but I
think the positive outweighs the negatives.

~~~
mwarkentin
You can block merges until there's an "approved" code review in the Protected
Branches setting. I don't think it has anything like "everyone who reviewed
must approve" though.

------
fosk
If anybody from GitHub is here, I have a feedback on the new Reviews feature.

When the Review approval is missing or required, please make it clear in the
"Pull Requests" list-view by updating the color of the little dot and it's
popup description.

Right now the colored dot and its description are only including "Checks" but
not "Reviews". It would be nice to have a clear indicator of which Pull
Requests are missing a review just by looking at the list.

------
samblr
Can't seem to find free private repos and unlimited collaborators ?

But good to see GitHub responding - would be keen to hear from bitbucket which
I personally use for private repos.

~~~
gitdude
Here is a list of features we shipped in the last 12 months:
[https://blog.bitbucket.org/2016/09/07/bitbucket-
cloud-5-mill...](https://blog.bitbucket.org/2016/09/07/bitbucket-
cloud-5-million-developers-900000-teams/)

------
vcarl
The improvements to code reviews are really exciting. Having comments submit
all at once instead of one at a time is a great UX change, I've definitely
gotten sidetracked mid-review because somebody started responding to my
initial comments when I'm neck deep. Comment threading is super useful for
discussion-heavy comments like code review, and an in-UI approve/request
changes is great.

~~~
moby
That's awesome to hear - we're glad you like those changes! As you dive into
it further, let us know how it works for you.

------
donatj
Code reviews currently do not seem to come through on the webhooks at all.

Our in-house automation suites depend on it, so this is a big _do not use_ for
us.

I really wish their APIs weren't second class citizens. It takes weeks or
months for new features to show up in the API - if at all. I wish there was
1-1 parity with the API.

~~~
rsanheim
We definitely have plans to get full support into the API around pull request
reviews.

Given how much iteration we do after an initial ship like this, especially one
with as much feedback as code review, we prefer shipping the API after things
have solidified and settled down after the wide release.

------
deathanatos
I sent this to support, but the "Files changed" tab in Pull Requests now has
an announcement "We've made some change to reviewing code"

The "Learn more" button on that banner is a broken link…

(It's a good thing this HN post later directed me to the blog post, as now
I've learned from that.)

~~~
moby
Sorry about that! Is the link working now?

~~~
deathanatos
Looks like it is! (The URL that was broken now has content; the banner has
since vanished for me.)

~~~
moby
Excellent. :)

------
gohwell
How about diffs on pull request? The biggest gripe I have with github is the
inability to compare my feature branch with the branch I'm merging too. The
diff you see is comparing the feature branch with the "base" branch which
would be stale when working on a dev team.

~~~
moby
I want to make sure I capture your feedback correctly, so let me know if this
doesn't help: we recently released the ability to change your base branch on a
PR. [https://github.com/blog/2224-change-the-base-branch-of-a-
pul...](https://github.com/blog/2224-change-the-base-branch-of-a-pull-request)

Let me know if that helps!

~~~
gohwell
Here's an example. It's meant to illustrate 2 developers working on a feature
branch based on master and one pulls their code in before the other.

[https://github.com/jparmstrong/gittest/pull/3/files](https://github.com/jparmstrong/gittest/pull/3/files)

\- Two feature branches were created based on master at the same time.

\- Branch1: committed a change to readme and it's pulled into master via PR.

\- Branch2: committed a change to readme, raised a pull request (PR#3), and
the diff doesn't show the line that was added with the branch1 pull request.

In this example, the PR is telling me there's a conflict and I need to merge
master with the PR branch (this is good). What it doesn't tell me is where the
conflict is.

Solution, merge the base branch into the interim PR branch. The result will
show you the conflict and properly represents what would happen if this PR is
accepted. (Bitbucket does this)

Thanks for following up.

gist of merge master example output:
[https://gist.github.com/jparmstrong/07cab1a566c5c1495d7c8e07...](https://gist.github.com/jparmstrong/07cab1a566c5c1495d7c8e075dd65962)

~~~
moby
Got it - very helpful. Thanks for clarifying! I've copied this verbatim and
sent across to our Platform team.

------
Corrado
I think their recent change to per user pricing plays into this nicely. These
features look really cool, but I can see it being costly to an organization
when you have to give managers, project managers, etc. access to Github just
so they can manage issues.

------
dkn
Gotta love a little competition.

~~~
oneloop
I know, right. GitHub hasn't moved in years, until they felt Atlassian and
GitLab starting to close in.

------
korva
This product video for GitHub Projects features a logo that's exactly like
Trello's. Cold. [https://youtu.be/NoBI4_9EuUw](https://youtu.be/NoBI4_9EuUw)

~~~
dkuntz2
That's the symbol they're using for Projects everywhere. If you look at a
repo, it's there.

------
stevejohnson
Missed opportunity to call the platform forum the "GitHub PlatForum."

~~~
nchelluri
I'm not sure "missed opportunity" is the right name for that :)

------
drewolson
Reviews are very exciting, but seem to be unable to fit the following use
case:

I want to setup a repo such that a subset of collaborators (or organization
members) can merge reviewed PRs to protected branches. I want the rest of the
users to be able to create new branches and submit PRs from them, but _not_ to
be able to push to protected branches. They should _only_ be able to land code
in protected branches via reviewed PRs (via the merge button).

Is there a way to achieve this now that I'm missing? Gitlab's more granular
user roles + permissions allow this.

~~~
deeplyoptional
[https://github.com/blog/2137-protected-branches-
improvements](https://github.com/blog/2137-protected-branches-improvements)

------
shurcooL
I've just used the new review mode to do a bigger (still medium) sized review
[0], and it was quite nice.

It's strange that I can edit any of the inline comments, but not the actual
review body itself. What if I made a typo there?

[0] [https://github.com/google/go-
github/pull/427#pullrequestrevi...](https://github.com/google/go-
github/pull/427#pullrequestreview-104460)

------
sorkin2
Hmm.. So was there a workflow where I could say "I'd like for this not to be
pushed until I've approved it", even if the patch is assigned to be reviewed
by someone else? Of course, I could just comment with that on the issue, but
it would be nicer if the issue would pop up somehow after the other reviewer
has reviewed it, and it would be obvious to everyone that it's waiting for my
approval.

------
musicmatze
What I really wonder right now: When reviewing my own PR on my own repo, I
cannot select that the things I proposed must be resolved before the PR can be
merged - why is that? Am I not allowed to keep myself from merging things I
considered changeworthy or what?

------
romanovcode
GitHub is playing catch-up with GitLab. Interesting.

------
Animats
I just hope Github doesn't pivot in a direction that makes them no longer a
safe place to archive open source code. We've had two failures already -
Google Code (shut down) and Sourceforge (started putting adware on the
executables of others.)

Github, please don't blow it.

------
sergiotapia
Can we import a Trello project with all it's lists/cards seamlessly into a
github repos `project`?

~~~
gerry_shaw
Not even close. Trello has way more features for cards. Project notes are
really just a blob of text (Markdown?) and that's it. No title, description,
checklists, attachments, or comments. One can imagine them coming though and
with the Projects API on the roadmap you would then be able to do an import.

------
huac
Definitely cool, but weren't you always able to comment inline on a PR?

~~~
Arnavion
The GIF shows "Start Review" button and "Finish your review" buttons (and a
"Pending" flag), which makes me think this is more geared to the complaints
that every comment sent an individual email instead of being batched when the
reviewer was ready to send them out.

Edit: Indeed, from the github blog post - "You can also leave a review summary
and delete, edit, or bundle comments before you submit them."

------
douche
Maybe I can finally get my boss to switch off of Unfuddle. Although moving 10
years of history out of a couple dozen SVN repos into git would likely be lots
of fun...

------
SEJeff
Now I wonder how long before some of these features such as mandatory reviews
will make it into Github Enterprise?

~~~
moby
The updated Code Review features will be coming to GitHub Enterprise soon - we
always aim to get new features onto the Enterprise platform on the next major
release (which occurs every 3 months on average).

~~~
SEJeff
Thanks, our team was literally lamenting about lacking specific reviewers when
migrating from phabricator to github enterprise last week. Looking forward to
it!

------
jcoffland
Oh how I want the ability to group repos into projects on GitHub. Thought this
was it. It's not.

------
bowmessage
Is this the death of Trello?

~~~
eyelidlessness
I'd switch instantly if:

1\. There was a faster and more contextual way to edit issues on a project.

2\. There was a way to set up an opinionated workflow where e.g. opening a PR
against an issue moves the issue to "Review"; closing said PR moves issue to
"Done" and closes it; closing an issue directly moves it to "Done" and vice
versa. Without this, there's way too much interaction required for even
GitHub's own preferred workflow.

3\. Automatic bidirectional linking between issue/PR on the project board.
(Honestly haven't had a chance to see if it does this, but will on the next PR
I open.)

4\. Automatically pre-fill a backlog with existing issues.

5\. A project could span multiple repositories (e.g. for tracking user stories
which might be addressed in an API or frontend repo, or both). We also track
non-dev work on our Trello board, and a project per repo doesn't support this.

6\. Filtering.

Edit... Also nice to have: ability to reference a checklist item in a link
from PR to issue, check it on merge, and so on.

~~~
mr_november
Hi - Codetree [1] does a lot of what you're asking for (specifically 3, 5, 6)
and I love the other stuff you mention, we've been thinking hard on a couple
of them. Would love to quickly chat about your workflow just to learn, not to
sell, if you can spare the 15 mins. If you're interested shoot me an email at
arif@codetree.com.

[1] [https://codetree.com](https://codetree.com)

------
dblooman
Wonder how services like Waffle will react to this

~~~
homeyer
[http://blog.waffle.io/say-hello-to-wafflebot/](http://blog.waffle.io/say-
hello-to-wafflebot/)

------
rileytg
anyone else consider this too little too late?

------
agumonkey
I predict, one day github will host a school.

------
Arnavion
1st party link: [https://github.com/blog/2256-a-whole-new-github-universe-
ann...](https://github.com/blog/2256-a-whole-new-github-universe-announcing-
new-tools-forums-and-features)

~~~
joshmanders
Can we get this updated to this? defunkt didn't post this blog post before
TechCrunch talked about it. I'd much rather had linked to it.

~~~
sctb
OK, we've updated the link from [https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/14/github-
gets-built-in-proje...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/14/github-gets-built-
in-project-management-tools-and-support-for-reviews/).

~~~
joshmanders
Thank you! I haven't said it lately, but the team behind this community is
great. Quickly becoming my favorite forum.

------
source99
Link goes right to 404 - Thats one heck of a new feature.

~~~
homeyer
Heh, 404s if you aren't logged in to GitHub

~~~
source99
Nope. I was logged in. Guessing it was something else.

I like how I got downvoted for providing information...

------
hannob
And still no HTTPS for github pages with custom domains...

~~~
dorianm
You can use Cloudflare for that. (That's what I do on
[https://doma.io](https://doma.io))

