
GitHub's new features show it’s finally listening to developers - owenwil
https://char.gd/blog/2019/github-is-building-the-developer-platform-we-always-needed
======
Someone1234
The main thread seems better:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19989684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19989684)

This lacks additional content or context. It is simply the author promoting
some 2016 letter/article criticising GitHub, and then very loosely tying it to
recent changes. It is self-promoting blogspam.

------
CameronNemo
>the world's largest open source community

Is github even considered an open source community? Open source projects work
on github, sure, (so do closed source projects) but github is not the
community. It is a tool.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
> github is not the community. It is a tool.

Not really, no. HackerNews, Slashdot, subreddits, are all communities. Same
goes for GitHub. The positive network effects are a considerable hurdle to its
competitors.

------
cr0sh
One click pull/update for forked repos? Not holding my breath on it...

This is something that more than a few people want, and at one time, it did
exist; a simple button you'd click on your fork of a repo, that would go and
pull down/merge the latest from the original.

I'm probably not alone in this - but I have a ton of repo "forks" that I just
keep around but don't make mods to, but try (and fail) to keep up to date with
the original. Why?

Well - because some of these interest me, but aren't often changed if at all -
and I worry that some day, the repo will just up and disappear (ie - be
deleted), and the code will be gone. So I keep a copy.

This does have the assumption that if they delete their repo, that my branch
won't disappear (I assume this is true - wouldn't make sense if that
happened). The same kind of thing could even happen to a well used and updated
codebase, just because the developer decides this is the thing to do.

So a hedge against this kind of thing.

But keeping the forks up-to-date - for the ones that are popular - is a pain.
A single button should be all that is needed, but doesn't exist. So instead,
you have to do this weird process (can't remember the exact steps - I recall
there's a point you issue a PR and validate it yourself, as part of the
process - it makes no sense). Note that this is all thru the web interface for
github.

One could keep the repos locally, then issue fetch/pull/merges to grab the
latest, but I'd like to avoid the storage req's of that.

In the meantime, I've tried to create a process - that mostly works - that
fetches the latest version of the repo, if it exists, as the compressed
archive, then stores it in a local "directory" that's a VFS to google drive
(IIRC), but it's still in a beta/dev phase and on a back burner.

It's too bad there isn't a way you could specify a fork as a non-updated
thing, that just automagically received the updates as they occurred (and then
stayed around or was compressed if the op deleted their original branch).

~~~
jkukul
There are few github bots [1][2] that keep your fork up to date. They probably
don't offer the exact workflow that you want, but you can always customise.

I'd assume that if GitHub notices that bots like these are popular, they'd
think about incorporating it as a feature. In a way, this is what has happened
with Dependabot [3] - IMO it's been so widely used that it made sense for
GitHub to include it as a feature.

[1]
[https://github.com/backstrokeapp/server](https://github.com/backstrokeapp/server)
[2] [https://github.com/wei/pull](https://github.com/wei/pull)

[3] [https://dependabot.com/blog/hello-
github/](https://dependabot.com/blog/hello-github/)

------
SEJeff
This seems like a really interesting business model but also one that will
benefit a lot of smaller developer who use github. I'm excited to see how this
all pans out.

~~~
marcinzm
GitHub doesn't really need a business model right now since MS probably has no
issues treating it as a loss-leader (and makes plenty of money elsewhere).
Eventually it'll need to make a profit probably but it's got time.

~~~
bluGill
GitHub free is a loss leader for GitHub enterprise. We have our own servers
where I work that we pay a fair amount to GitHub. It is pretty much like
Github.com, but our own company domain in the middle. We don't always have the
latest version, but we are not far off.

If there weren't people using the free version and wanting those features to
our propitiatory workflow we wouldn't have known about GitHub much less bought
it.

~~~
SEJeff
I also use github enterprise (on-premise).

This is still a really interesting business model, and one I applaud, as it
helps a lot of open source developers.

------
bobblywobbles
Very excited about this. As someone who contributes to open source software,
I'm excited for these changes.

~~~
imiric
I applaud Microsoft for the Sponsor program. We need new ways of monetizing
open source, and this is a step in the right direction.

However, the article itself mentions this program, a smaller contributor and
dependencies feature and a planned feature list as being signs of a major
turning point for GitHub. It's a bit too congratulatory of Microsoft and reads
more like an advert than a genuine piece, though I'm sure the author meant
well.

> As someone who contributes to open source software, I'm excited for these
> changes.

I'm curious, if you're passionate about open source, why would you feel
excited for changes on one of the most popular closed source websites on the
Internet? I like the direction Microsoft has been taking in the past few years
regarding F/LOSS, but I think we should be cautiously optimistic about GitHub,
while continuing to migrate away towards alternative open platforms.

Personally I've been using a self-hosted instance of Gitea[0] for many months
now (and Gogs before that), and it's been working great as a private GitHub
alternative.

I'll be excited when most of the world's developers share code and knowledge
(looking at you, SO) on open source platforms.

[0]: [https://gitea.io/](https://gitea.io/)

------
sschueller
I am wondering how long this will last and at what point they will prohibit
repo owners from using alternative funding methods like bounty source or
bitcoin.

~~~
anchpop
Since Microsoft's goal with everything they've been doing in the past few
months has been to gain developer trust and mindshare (WSL, a better windows
terminal, all the new Github features, etc.), I don't see this as a realistic
outcome. They also don't seem to plan on monetizing this, as they're currently
giving away free money and said they'll only start charging transaction fees
next year. This whole endeavor is to get developers on Github so companies
will pay to use Github enterprise

~~~
techntoke
WSL is terrible and gives me a bad impression of MS (and gives Linux a bad
name). Their new terminal isn't out yet as far as I know.

~~~
GordonS
In what way is WSL "terrible"?

I use it quite frequently, and I quite like it.

~~~
techntoke
It is incredibly slow (20X), distro installs can't keep up, Docker doesn't
work, systemd doesn't work, drive mounting has issues, and lack of a descent
terminal.

------
mukashoo
Remember sourceforge ?

That’s what I think when I think github now

It really loses in features compared to gitlab. Such as large files

~~~
GordonS
I've never used GitLab - what other features does it have that you feel GitHub
is lacking?

~~~
raehik
Many recent GitHub features have been ports from GitLab: WIP pull requests,
suggested issues. I'd reverse the question and ask what GitHub is offering
that GitLab isn't (except the community usage). (And yeah, I guess I'm a
GitLab fanboy...)

