6 ms·

I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the relea

by cyphar 9y ago

I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-has-been-released/ https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-has-been-release... [2]: https://blog.github.com/2017-05-10-git-2-13-has-been-released/ https://blog.github.com/2017-05-10-git-2-13-has-been-release...

sametmax 9y ago
It's a sane marketing strategy, let's not blame them for this. They are, after all, a major actor of the git ecosystem, with a great track record, using quality blog posts to inform your of their main tech. I see zero problem with this.
- mkirklions 9y ago
  I run a few websites, and you bet that each of them will give shutouts to each other. They are all free, they all help users. git and github has helped me, and ive never paid. I consider all of this fantastic.
jcl 9y ago
I don't know... While the title might give that impression, the opening paragraph seems pretty up-front about distinguishing "the open source Git project" from GitHub ("here's our look..."). They don't even mention their not-insignificant contributions to the project, nor do they say things like "we added [x]", even though they legitimately might be able to in some cases. And, given their line of work, it would be kind of surprising if the GitHub blog didn't cover recent Git developments.
- paradite 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by: - Git 2.17 is now available (gitlab.com) - Git 2.17 is now available (bitbucket.com) The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github. Anecdote example: my university lecturer calls Github APIs "git APIs". While that might not be a bad thing, it blurs the boundary between an open source project and a company. I can already imagine Github having influence on the direction of git project and becomes the de facto owner, and the impact on its competitors and the repository hosting industry. The equivalence would be Microsoft, instead of owning TypeScript, owns the ECMAScript specification.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by No, not at all. >The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github Well, git IS associated with GitHub. It's the de facto #1 hosting service for Git repositories, eclipsing all others, and the #1 host of open source git repos. They're also major contributors to Git. But regardless of all that, they host git repos. They literally work with people that use Git, day in, day out, and help them host their git managed code. Of course they'll cover developments in Git. Who else would be more natural to cover them (aside something like "Git planet")? The GTK+ blog? The IEEE?
  - sytse 9y ago
    I think GitHub has done a great job being a good steward of the git project. They welcomed us (GitLab) to events like git merge. Because they made git popular people are sometimes confused about the difference between git and GitHub. But GitHub has done a great job on not muddling the water themselves.
    - paradite 9y ago
      Okay. I guess if you say so then I was just being paranoid and overreacting.
      - sytse 9y ago
        I'm not saying that, just giving our point of view. BTW I still meet a lot of people that think GitHub is open source instead of them hosting open source.
scarface74 9y ago
Open source developers have to eat too. I think it's a win-win. GitHub makes money by leveraging open source and they pay their employees to contribute to Git that benefits everyone.
golergka 9y ago
Writing genuinely informative articles about your company's area of competence is a very widespread marketing approach. Just earlier today I've read a brief overview on moment theater written by some theater's marketing team. They didn't try to hide that it's a material designed to sell their tickets, but it didn't make it any less interesting.
peff 9y ago
Thanks for the feedback in this thread (I'm the author). The main goal _is_ to let people know about the new version, and about new features they can use (there are a ton of other new features and a lot of backend speedups and cleanups that I don't bother to highlight, because they're not really actionable by normal users). I've tried to make the Git vs GitHub distinction clear in the first paragraph without belaboring it, but I agree with the sentiment here that the title muddies things. For future iterations I'll look into something more like "A look at the new features in v2.17".
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  I think the title you used is a lot less confusing than "A look at the new features in v2.17". A title like that doesn't mention Git would make me think that GitHub is releasing v2.17 if its own product. I don't think there's a way you can clear this up within the title.
  - peff 9y ago
    Er, sorry, I meant to say "...the new features in Git v2.17". I think that keeps it clear but without making it overtly look like a release announcement.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      Ok, I think that does actually make things a bit more clear. Thanks for writing these up, by the way!
jolmg 9y ago
It does happen. When we were hiring a couple years back, some candidates seemed to be confusing the two or thought that git was a product of GitHub.
abhishekjha 9y ago
I had raised this issue of demarcation a few days back [0]. As a newcomer to git a few years back I wasn't able to tell if github is a part of git or not OR can you work with git without a github account. It was confusing to me as github allows some of the exact functionalities offered by git. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16600666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16600666

by cyphar 9y ago

sametmax 9y ago

It's a sane marketing strategy, let's not blame them for this. They are, after all, a major actor of the git ecosystem, with a great track record, using quality blog posts to inform your of their main tech. I see zero problem with this.

mkirklions 9y ago
I run a few websites, and you bet that each of them will give shutouts to each other. They are all free, they all help users. git and github has helped me, and ive never paid. I consider all of this fantastic.

jcl 9y ago

I don't know... While the title might give that impression, the opening paragraph seems pretty up-front about distinguishing "the open source Git project" from GitHub ("here's our look..."). They don't even mention their not-insignificant contributions to the project, nor do they say things like "we added [x]", even though they legitimately might be able to in some cases. And, given their line of work, it would be kind of surprising if the GitHub blog didn't cover recent Git developments.

paradite 9y ago
Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by: - Git 2.17 is now available (gitlab.com) - Git 2.17 is now available (bitbucket.com) The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github. Anecdote example: my university lecturer calls Github APIs "git APIs". While that might not be a bad thing, it blurs the boundary between an open source project and a company. I can already imagine Github having influence on the direction of git project and becomes the de facto owner, and the impact on its competitors and the repository hosting industry. The equivalence would be Microsoft, instead of owning TypeScript, owns the ECMAScript specification.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by No, not at all. >The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github Well, git IS associated with GitHub. It's the de facto #1 hosting service for Git repositories, eclipsing all others, and the #1 host of open source git repos. They're also major contributors to Git. But regardless of all that, they host git repos. They literally work with people that use Git, day in, day out, and help them host their git managed code. Of course they'll cover developments in Git. Who else would be more natural to cover them (aside something like "Git planet")? The GTK+ blog? The IEEE?
- sytse 9y ago
  I think GitHub has done a great job being a good steward of the git project. They welcomed us (GitLab) to events like git merge. Because they made git popular people are sometimes confused about the difference between git and GitHub. But GitHub has done a great job on not muddling the water themselves.
  - paradite 9y ago
    Okay. I guess if you say so then I was just being paranoid and overreacting.
    - sytse 9y ago
      I'm not saying that, just giving our point of view. BTW I still meet a lot of people that think GitHub is open source instead of them hosting open source.

scarface74 9y ago

Open source developers have to eat too. I think it's a win-win. GitHub makes money by leveraging open source and they pay their employees to contribute to Git that benefits everyone.

golergka 9y ago

Writing genuinely informative articles about your company's area of competence is a very widespread marketing approach. Just earlier today I've read a brief overview on moment theater written by some theater's marketing team. They didn't try to hide that it's a material designed to sell their tickets, but it didn't make it any less interesting.

peff 9y ago

Thanks for the feedback in this thread (I'm the author). The main goal _is_ to let people know about the new version, and about new features they can use (there are a ton of other new features and a lot of backend speedups and cleanups that I don't bother to highlight, because they're not really actionable by normal users). I've tried to make the Git vs GitHub distinction clear in the first paragraph without belaboring it, but I agree with the sentiment here that the title muddies things. For future iterations I'll look into something more like "A look at the new features in v2.17".

daveFNbuck 9y ago
I think the title you used is a lot less confusing than "A look at the new features in v2.17". A title like that doesn't mention Git would make me think that GitHub is releasing v2.17 if its own product. I don't think there's a way you can clear this up within the title.
- peff 9y ago
  Er, sorry, I meant to say "...the new features in Git v2.17". I think that keeps it clear but without making it overtly look like a release announcement.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    Ok, I think that does actually make things a bit more clear. Thanks for writing these up, by the way!

jolmg 9y ago

It does happen. When we were hiring a couple years back, some candidates seemed to be confusing the two or thought that git was a product of GitHub.

abhishekjha 9y ago

I had raised this issue of demarcation a few days back [0]. As a newcomer to git a few years back I wasn't able to tell if github is a part of git or not OR can you work with git without a github account. It was confusing to me as github allows some of the exact functionalities offered by git. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16600666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16600666