- 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.