Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Yea. At the end of the day, it's still a git repo that you're dealing with. This post is a lot of hot air.

That's exactly what I thought. Whats all that talk about it not being compatible with git and a separate protocol? It's just plain git, you could still apply a patch received my email locally and upload it. It seems to be a lot of whine and very little suggestions. I remember seeing Linus Torvalds writing that it is one of the best options for hosting git, even though he was not a huge fan of pull requests either.

Yes, but he's kind of right - they could do better.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This is like complaining about the mars mission saying that their pictures are not HD enough and they could do better. No they couldn't and they would if they could.

Well since I'm already downvoted I'll just finish this rant. Comments like this frustrate me, why would you just assume something could be done better just because it is easy to do? Everyone read how Github works, it's a collective of programmers that assign themselves tasks, anyone at github could for themselves decide to implement this feature. No one did, obviously they've got something better to do! Don't tell me every employee at github is an evil corporate overlord that wants to vendor lock the world into github.

They make the best source control repository in the world, and you should unequivocally laud them for that.

Frankly if you don't, I think you're a bit of a retard, so that brings me to the linked article. It makes no sense at all. Github does nothing fundamentally wrong, and it is not incompatible with how he or anyone else uses software.

If a project requires you to submit a pull request via github, how is that different from a project requiring you to submit a bug through mozilla? It's just not. If you think you and your patch are so important you shouldn't be bothered with pull requests, why don't you just fork and put it on a repository somewhere else?

As if e-mailing patches to people is somehow more effective at getting them to merge code. As if git am is somehow a fundamental property of git, instead of just some feature Torvalds hacked onto it.

I would like to rant about more invalid points he makes about github being a 'reimplementation' of git, but he doesn't make any other points.

By that measure, as long as a company stays busy on their product, they've built the best product they could.

That sounds like hippy hand-wavy BS to me.

As a software engineer who works at a Bay Area startup with a pick-your-own-tasks model, we still (like GitHub) have product managers who give input and direction into features and product design. Just saying that the decisions they've made about how to allocate resources are the best possible decisions they could have made is just giving them (or anybody else) too much credit.

I see your point, I'm not saying that GitHub isn't awesome. I love it and I am really convinced that it has revolutionized the way collaborative projects work. That doesn't mean it can't be better.

Being a distributed version control system, Git supports different workflows. Pull on demand is one of them, but mailing patches is an equally valid option. Git was initially conceived with the kernel's particular workflow in mind, and `git am` is fundamental in that process. Do I find it as easy to use as what GitHub offers? No, but supporting it wouldn't hurt and it would bring some old-school developers to GitHub's side.

They could start by treating users like they own their projects. There is no way to remove the Pull Requests tab. This is, or at least would have been, trivial to implement. It stems out of the idea that users can't make decisions for themselves. You can listen to 5by5 podcasts 10 hours a week to convince yourself that this is the right way, but from a user empowerment perspective, it isn't.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact