- Now "owning" a repo seems even more important. Regularly commit to someone else's repo? Not evident unless you go digging for it.
- The timeline bar-graph used to show blue for your own commits and grey for other people's. Now it either looks like you did all the work (your own repo), or someone else did it (forked repos).
Even if these two don't matter to you personally, I fear it'll help drive behaviour you see a lot in the Ruby community where, unless it's a huge project like Rails, people start their own versions in the hope of getting it popular and recognised. There's little status to be gotten from tinkering on "someone else's" repo.
(Think social startups except with code libraries.)
Honestly, IMO, GitHub has been getting worse, not better, since the spring. I have no idea why, but they're taking away features -- perhaps to speed up the site?
Anyway, I don't get it. They dropped their "social coding" motto awhile back, perhaps they're targeting other things now? Maybe they had to scale back features to raise that $100 million? It's a mystery.
Call me silly, but I really liked that graph .. it gave me a little boost of pride to bring up my github page and see the effect of a burst of hacking activity in visual form. Obviously the info's still around in the commit logs, but it seemed much more obvious in the graph.
I guess computing the graph did probably consume CPU time, but isn't that exactly the sort of thing that differentiates github from a "dumb" git repo provider?
A spike in traffic could mean I invested that extra time to land something new in a project, that was a great way for github to ensure commitment in projects.
Apart from that I think every change in the last six months have been good.
@damncabbage: @holman Was the removal of the blue from
the repo commit timeline bar-graphs intentional? Update
looks good, by the way. :)
@holman: @damncabbage definitely. Blue behind text
would be really distracting.
@damncabbage: @holman Hmm, point. What about having
the blue appear when the timeline fades in on hover,
or just a darker shade of grey?
@damncabbage: @holman The post over at HN has a few
reasons why some of us are a bit blue about the
missing, uh, blue in the graphs:
@holman: @damncabbage We’re pretty pleased with it.
The change then looks to be simply an effort to highlight the workflow they want you to use.
I must however note that any effort to shout conspiracy should be tempered by the fact that github makes its money by selling private repos, so the above change, while reinforcing their suggested workflow, does not necessarily benefit them directly.
I agree, I'm definitely not disputing that.
With the removal of the blue from the commit timelines, the profile of someone who forks and commits to a bunch of popular projects (eg. Rails, jQuery, MiniTest) now looks the same the profile of someone who just forks a bunch of projects; you need to dig around a bit to tell the difference.
(I've been seeing an increasing trend of people who fork popular projects and don't do anything with them; I don't know if it's trying to fake activity on GitHub to look better when going for a job or what. Examples: https://github.com/chardy https://github.com/yanovitchsky https://github.com/VasyOk )
Agreed. Additionally, even if you are a collaborator on someone else's repo it doesn't show on your profile, which greatly under-represents a user's activity on Github.
This breaks for the traditional git workflow, which doesn't revolve around the 'forking' step.
In other words, if I commit regularly to another person's repository, even if I don't have a (public) 'forked' version, those commits should still show up regardless.
it's not a great solution but hack away till Preston-Warner gets the feedback I say - if there is a readme on profile I might try it
So github is about status? Silly me, I thought was contributing to OSS.
Particularly I don't like that the activity is now hidden on profile pages. I often like to look at people's activity, and it bothers me that it is an extra click away every time now.
I miss the blue to distinguish your own commits from commits by other users.
Information that used to be available right on top such as organizations, and people the user is following are now harder to find or below the fold (on my macbook air 11").
Also now that the filters on top have more emphasis (All, Public, Private, etc) I think they should remove ones that are not useful. For example I don't have any private repos or mirrors so I feel like there shouldn't be links to empty pages, but this is a minor detail.
On top of that I think the page itself has a bit too much white space. It feels a bit plain to me.
It actually feels less designed to me.
I agree the loss of who works on what is poor - but it's always been hard to tell mine vs yours - I am a bit annoyed but on mature reflection I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and see them iterate out
Both the profile and the dashboard now show less information than they used to. The icons are a nice touch but totally irrelevant, and are not effective on a quick glance.
Meanwhile, the streams constantly show redundant information: e.g. 10 successive commits+push or wiki edits on the same project (happens all the time in my feeds) consume 10 distinct rows - why not collapse them together?
The launch bar was actually a cool idea, but it's more of a hack than a useful tool. And pray tell me what good does the /launch page do? Why should I ever use it as a landing page?
And don't get me started on the push performance, which is abysmal and feels like it has constantly been degrading over time.
I'll say it again, I <3 github, and they're a truly awesome team. But for the past several months every single change they've made was a big "wow, new X, let's take a look" followed by a sad, soft "meh".
As both a designer, and a programer, neither side of me has complaints. It's much cleaner and very much a step in the right direction.
Just because you're not fumbling to say what a beautiful new change it is, I am betting without realising it will make your life easier.
People don't like change.
> People don't like change.
Never say never, Less is more, blah blah blah.
They don't address your stream comment, but one of my gripes is not being able to see repo counts when filtering, or having the option to fill in "repo descriptions" for older projects.
EDIT: I like the re-design and the fact Github is constantly evolving
Must be a challenge to keep those repos up to date with the constant changes at GitHub, though.
I have one forked repo that I forked to fix a line in their docs, and it looks to all the world like I spent a time of time on it.
Now it's just all grey. :(
This is concerning because its a sign of to much focus, going from x1 amount of resources to x10 means you risk over-developing what was great. You have too much time, to many resources, so you over develop things when they truly don't need any changes (at the time). The only saving grace here is they could be in the middle of a shift to a much larger vision, so these changes all seem poor until it all comes together in the following months. I have to ask though, why the shotgun approach to the updates then, they should take their time, once a week would be enough change for me, allow me to actually feel out the changes before adding more. =/
And it's not about personal embarrassment, it's also about security. If I star code I rely on to watch for updates, I'd be publicly advertising the attack surface for my app. That really sucks.
Now, all you see is username/repositoryname, which is damn near useless. They replaced actual content with...whitespace.
I don't know how they screwed this one up so badly, but they need to change it back to being socially useful again, and pronto.
Our language is being diluted.
Still needs a space to add in a brief bio though considering Github is considered to be the new age developer resume.
Not exactly "killing it", unless I misunderstood you...
As for the outages, at least they were honest and transparent about the outages unlike many other companies who try and sweep it under the rug. Accountability and transparency are 2 great traits to have in a company.
No need to be so cynical erichocean.
I wonder how many of these accidental deploys they have on a regular basis which we don't notice.
No deploy is on accident.
Only reason I thought this was an accident is because there was no blog post about it. Usually Github introduces it's every single improvement on it's blog. Compared to them this definitely deserves an introduction.
- to see the activity of all repos at a glance, not just on hover
- visually pick out repos that are predominantly in one language over another
The design is nice, though.
I'd prefer to see work done on features that are hurting the utility of the profile page - like listing repos that you're a collaborator of, but not necessarily the owner.
As it stands, the profile page is a misrepresentation of a user's work on Github.
It looks nice though.