10 ms·

Source for theguardian.com

251 points by zorkw4rg 8y ago

mnx 8y ago
Interesting that this seems to be very liberally licensed under Apache v2.
group043 8y ago
Topkek
jxub 8y ago
Great idea for recruitment. Also, didn't knew it is mostly Scala with server-side templates, though their comment system must be something like React or plain JS.
tomalpha 8y ago
The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-...
- matt4077 8y ago
  > I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. https://github.com/nytimes https://github.com/BostonGlobe https://github.com/npr & https://github.com/nprapps https://github.com/theatlantic https://github.com/wsj ... I really wish people wouldn't always assume the worst of the media. Especially when it takes about two seconds to verify (disprove) one's prejudice. I know one such post isn't going to have much of an effect. But considering every tangential mention of "mainstream media" brings out a thousand cynics, being an underpaid journalist trying to keep our society's discourse somewhat together must be endlessly frustrating. Plus, of course, it's just impossible to make informed decisions in a democracy when all trust in the media has been eroded by this hysteria.
  - botverse 8y ago
    I would recommend to double check those links to the github orgs, I’m sorry to say they are small projects. Can’t compare with publishing the whole frontend, their image managing library and their text editor.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      The NYT has 65 projects, most of which have a few hundred stars, and many in the thousands. It's lower for some of the others. But it still seems to me that these publishers default to publishing their code. BUT: most publishers probably do not run an entirely home-grown system. Indeed, you will find many Wordpress plugins or rails gems among those published projects. And for the homespun solutions, it's likely that they are too specific to a publisher to be usefully open-sourced without a major investment of resources, like the Guardian's undertaking.
- onion2k 8y ago
  I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. There's very little cost to opening it up, and a huge benefit (recruitment as you say, openness, community engagement, maybe even bug fixes..). Why not open up the code?
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    opening up publishes all your vulnerabilities, bugs, hacks and swearwords in the code as well. Thats plenty of reasons to not go open source
    - Operyl 8y ago
      Security by obscurity really isn’t a great place to stay on long term. There is also an entire backend to this. I can only see great positives long term here, even if it means someone nefarious finds a bug in the short term.
    - onion2k 8y ago
      Those are reasons to open the code up. You'll be motivated to improve it.
- maze-le 8y ago
  >> I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials I really don't know why this always has to be pointed out when it comes to classic mass media. I would say: "Good thing" because if you'd always agree, they would be doing a lousy job. Newspapers shouldn't be worldview-repeaters, especially in the op-eds. Lots of people look for validation of their already existing worldviews instead of critically reflecting other opinions.
  - toyg 8y ago
    It's not about the newspaper quality, it's about signaling that the speaker is not a card-carrying supporter of the political faction the newspaper is traditionally associated with. So for the Guardian it translates to "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian". With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russian Oligarchs Living In London.
    - maze-le 8y ago
      >> "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian" So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read. I think it is very important for everyone to be confronted with opinions that don't fit into ones already established narratives. And nobody should ever issue an apology for that. The alternative would be to renounce your intellectual curiosity and feed of a self-reinforcing feedback loop... [0]: The leading conservative newspaper in Germany.
      - toyg 8y ago
        > Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read. I think it's a natural state: sources inevitably influence your view of the world, and most people only consume one source for any given media, so it's not illogical to desume that you will be influenced primarily by that one source. I completely agree that consuming a multiplicity of sources is a Good Thing.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Having worked in publishing, their effort and the NYT (particularly Bostock) to open up the code to the community is notable and admirable. I’ve tried to push for open source projects at similar business scales to no avail. Deaf ears. It’s a shame that it’s viewed largely as a means to an end. Yet the very same companies used to work with printers to produce innovations. Digital media seems to be viewed much more as a commodity to many in the industry, unfortunately—in spite of it being the most effective and paradigm-shifting medium for mass communication since the television, radio, or platen press.
  - toyg 8y ago
    > Digital media seems to be viewed much more as a commodity [...] in spite of it being the most effective and paradigm-shifting medium Or rather because: digital media is now so easy to produce and distribute, that its intrinsic value has now dropped to zero.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      I’m not sure that’s it. I think that might be the perception, but users often speak out about the desire for higher quality content. Particularly content that is more interactive and engaging. But many media groups see it as a means to an end, like I’ve noted. Throw up WordPress with a CDN for images and host every brand you own on one to five instances and that’s it. They understand those words: WordPress, CMS, CDN, enterprise-grade. They don’t know anything else about them, and don’t care. They, probably out of sincere financial need, prioritize analytics over all else in the tech space. I think the split off from what you’ve noted is this: Where they might have paid attention to improvements in colour mixing in print tech, etc, for the effects it would have on published photography they cannot see the benefits to investing in a more refined digital publishing platform or output. Just put a skin on whatever’s free and out there already—then have your engineers spend countless hours just putting out fires and patching holes with proverbial PHP bubblegum. Don’t get me started on data hygiene... To wit: I’ve always worked outside of those teams looking in. Except for the data side—nightmare-inducing stuff.
      - 8y ago
- e12e 8y ago
  Well, there's : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)#Histo...
666lumberjack 8y ago
Always nice to see Scala being used for something like this
JorgeGT 8y ago
IANAL, but this seems to collide with their EULA with Commercial Type [1], since third party hosting of the font files is "strictly prohibited" and the font files are in fact all available in the repo, which certainly doesn't sound like "reasonable effort to prevent access/use by unlicensed parties". [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c3e5f3921631ec344a3eb83/static/src/fonts/Commercial%20Type%20EULA%20Web-general.pdf https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c...
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Though I'll not make any judgement towards "prevent access", the main license file[0] does state: > All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type (https://commercialtype.com/ https://commercialtype.com/), and may not be reproduced without permission. As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions manage to hold onto ownership. If I told my a prospective client that the websites they'd be paying me to build would forever more be —essentially— mine, they'd fire me pretty quickly. Same goes for most work product with employers. The Guardian commissioned these faces. Why would they accept such a crappy license? [0]: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE
  - JorgeGT 8y ago
    Being outside the business, I found it surprising as well! The fonts are named GuardianTextWeb, GuardianSansWeb, etc., suggesting to me they have been purposely commissioned by The Guardian to obtain a differentiated look and feel. However the license is non-exclusive and revocable, and restrictive to the point that only web seems to be allowed. The fonts are indeed available for purchase: https://commercialtype.com/catalog/guardian https://commercialtype.com/catalog/guardian which from the point of view of protecting the look and feel of your brand that you just commissioned seems a bit weird.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    A font family with the weights and other options a newspaper needs is a major undertaking. It's maybe 5 to 10 person-years of rather specialised work. For a publication constantly fighting to even break even, the costs aren't trivial. So, the answer obviously is: the Guardian got the font far cheaper by allowing it to be sold to other customers, and (relevant here) not paying for a license that allows sub-licensing (which would be completely useless to them, anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually a deal where no money changed hands, with the foundry getting the Guardian name for PR, and constant feedback during the design process. As to web design: unless otherwise specified, web design is covered by the same copyright rules as fonts (or movies, or books,...). The correct analogy actually is a customer selling your design to some third party, something that probably would upset quite a few designers. As for the customer changing a design: that's an infringement of the creator's so-called "moral rights". Its legality varies between jurisdictions, I believe.
duckson 8y ago
The docs include a recipe for Breton crêpes. :) [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-archives/crepes.md https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-arc...
- littlestymaar 8y ago
  Hilarious! What the heck is it doing here?
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    I prefer it over the suicide.mp3 we found in a proprietary software's code base
    - clarkey252 8y ago
      Did you listen to it?
    - monetus 8y ago
      Umm... Do you mind if I ask for some context there?
      - thecatspaw 8y ago
        I dont really have any. All context I can provide is that someone told me to go look at that expensive frameworks sourcecode and search for a suicide.mp3. All it contains is a loud scream I think, and the framework provider pretends the file is not there
  - muglug 8y ago
    The blame has it: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/commit/9194aa952c93b3fefa17dc9306cd5af034d56dff https://github.com/guardian/frontend/commit/9194aa952c93b3fe... by https://www.kaelig.fr/ https://www.kaelig.fr/
  - Operyl 8y ago
ceolin 8y ago
One more reason to support them. Even if you don't always agree with their opinions, it's nice to move away from commercial journalism and keep things as open and transparent as possible.
- k1m 8y ago
  It's nice to move away from commercial journalism, I agree. But the Guardian is very much commercial journalism. See http://expressiveegg.org/2017/02/07/guardian-bothering/ http://expressiveegg.org/2017/02/07/guardian-bothering/ and https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-guardians-scott-trust/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-s...
- swarnie_ 8y ago
  The Guardian is both commercial and pretty left wing, i prefer a more balanced view of my news.
  - Brometheus 8y ago
    Fox News :D
    - swarnie_ 8y ago
      Haha, how any of you state side manage to watch Fox has always been a mystery for me.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        Pro wrestling is also popular here.
        krapp 8y ago
        Yeah, but people know that's fake...
        8y ago
RyanShook 8y ago
So is the the guardian considered a monolithic app? Does this source include CMS components?
- theefer 8y ago
  The frontend repository above is only for the user-facing front-end website (aka the guardian.com). Other back-end components such as the content API and the content creation tool (Composer) are separate projects in their own private repos (not open source). That said the Guardian has many other open source projects on their GitHub org [1], including their image management tool for instance [2]. [1] https://github.com/guardian https://github.com/guardian [2] https://github.com/guardian/grid https://github.com/guardian/grid
microcolonel 8y ago
Aside: seems they still have this component deployed, but for some reason it is not the same in master as it is on the site. https://github.com/guardian/thrashers/commit/dd4b41d48e71cb845b405b050f3ada3e73da2512#diff-e408c2ad20b4421c25ecfeefe75c5b1a https://github.com/guardian/thrashers/commit/dd4b41d48e71cb8...
philipov 8y ago
I hope this doesn't contradict journalistic ethics to not reveal their source!
- bmmayer1 8y ago
  This deserves an upvote and extra points for creativity.
  - throwawaylolx 8y ago
    Both of these comments belong on reddit, not here.
    - ant6n 8y ago
      The comment, which marks other comments as belonging on reddit, very much belongs on hacker news.
    - agluszak 8y ago
      Why?
      - upzone3 8y ago
        No fun! No fun ever! We are very serious.
      - SargeZT 8y ago
        The first one is fine, it's humorous and relevant to the topic. The reply is pointless though, it's only talking about moderation of the topic.
        stochastic_monk 8y ago
        Guidelines say that talking about votes is pointless and therefore against the rules. “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”
Fiahil 8y ago
I was surprised that they chose Make for the frontend assets, but sticked to SBT for the scala app. Wouldn't it make sens to have everything under one build system, _especially_ because SBT is an absolute pain to work with? This comment is a subjective personal view. If you like SBT, please say it out loud.
- justinph 8y ago
  Make is a pretty decent way to put all your build commands under one very widely understood format. There are commands in there that run bash scripts, node, etc.
neverminder 8y ago
I see they're using Scala/Play stack for the backend, excellent choice.
lcnmrn 8y ago
Yet another over engineered site.

251 points by zorkw4rg 8y ago

mnx 8y ago

Interesting that this seems to be very liberally licensed under Apache v2.

group043 8y ago

Topkek

jxub 8y ago

Great idea for recruitment. Also, didn't knew it is mostly Scala with server-side templates, though their comment system must be something like React or plain JS.

tomalpha 8y ago

The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-...

matt4077 8y ago
> I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. https://github.com/nytimes https://github.com/BostonGlobe https://github.com/npr & https://github.com/nprapps https://github.com/theatlantic https://github.com/wsj ... I really wish people wouldn't always assume the worst of the media. Especially when it takes about two seconds to verify (disprove) one's prejudice. I know one such post isn't going to have much of an effect. But considering every tangential mention of "mainstream media" brings out a thousand cynics, being an underpaid journalist trying to keep our society's discourse somewhat together must be endlessly frustrating. Plus, of course, it's just impossible to make informed decisions in a democracy when all trust in the media has been eroded by this hysteria.
- botverse 8y ago
  I would recommend to double check those links to the github orgs, I’m sorry to say they are small projects. Can’t compare with publishing the whole frontend, their image managing library and their text editor.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    The NYT has 65 projects, most of which have a few hundred stars, and many in the thousands. It's lower for some of the others. But it still seems to me that these publishers default to publishing their code. BUT: most publishers probably do not run an entirely home-grown system. Indeed, you will find many Wordpress plugins or rails gems among those published projects. And for the homespun solutions, it's likely that they are too specific to a publisher to be usefully open-sourced without a major investment of resources, like the Guardian's undertaking.
onion2k 8y ago
I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. There's very little cost to opening it up, and a huge benefit (recruitment as you say, openness, community engagement, maybe even bug fixes..). Why not open up the code?
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  opening up publishes all your vulnerabilities, bugs, hacks and swearwords in the code as well. Thats plenty of reasons to not go open source
  - Operyl 8y ago
    Security by obscurity really isn’t a great place to stay on long term. There is also an entire backend to this. I can only see great positives long term here, even if it means someone nefarious finds a bug in the short term.
  - onion2k 8y ago
    Those are reasons to open the code up. You'll be motivated to improve it.
maze-le 8y ago
>> I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials I really don't know why this always has to be pointed out when it comes to classic mass media. I would say: "Good thing" because if you'd always agree, they would be doing a lousy job. Newspapers shouldn't be worldview-repeaters, especially in the op-eds. Lots of people look for validation of their already existing worldviews instead of critically reflecting other opinions.
- toyg 8y ago
  It's not about the newspaper quality, it's about signaling that the speaker is not a card-carrying supporter of the political faction the newspaper is traditionally associated with. So for the Guardian it translates to "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian". With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russian Oligarchs Living In London.
  - maze-le 8y ago
    >> "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian" So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read. I think it is very important for everyone to be confronted with opinions that don't fit into ones already established narratives. And nobody should ever issue an apology for that. The alternative would be to renounce your intellectual curiosity and feed of a self-reinforcing feedback loop... [0]: The leading conservative newspaper in Germany.
    - toyg 8y ago
      > Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read. I think it's a natural state: sources inevitably influence your view of the world, and most people only consume one source for any given media, so it's not illogical to desume that you will be influenced primarily by that one source. I completely agree that consuming a multiplicity of sources is a Good Thing.
52-6F-62 8y ago
Having worked in publishing, their effort and the NYT (particularly Bostock) to open up the code to the community is notable and admirable. I’ve tried to push for open source projects at similar business scales to no avail. Deaf ears. It’s a shame that it’s viewed largely as a means to an end. Yet the very same companies used to work with printers to produce innovations. Digital media seems to be viewed much more as a commodity to many in the industry, unfortunately—in spite of it being the most effective and paradigm-shifting medium for mass communication since the television, radio, or platen press.
- toyg 8y ago
  > Digital media seems to be viewed much more as a commodity [...] in spite of it being the most effective and paradigm-shifting medium Or rather because: digital media is now so easy to produce and distribute, that its intrinsic value has now dropped to zero.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    I’m not sure that’s it. I think that might be the perception, but users often speak out about the desire for higher quality content. Particularly content that is more interactive and engaging. But many media groups see it as a means to an end, like I’ve noted. Throw up WordPress with a CDN for images and host every brand you own on one to five instances and that’s it. They understand those words: WordPress, CMS, CDN, enterprise-grade. They don’t know anything else about them, and don’t care. They, probably out of sincere financial need, prioritize analytics over all else in the tech space. I think the split off from what you’ve noted is this: Where they might have paid attention to improvements in colour mixing in print tech, etc, for the effects it would have on published photography they cannot see the benefits to investing in a more refined digital publishing platform or output. Just put a skin on whatever’s free and out there already—then have your engineers spend countless hours just putting out fires and patching holes with proverbial PHP bubblegum. Don’t get me started on data hygiene... To wit: I’ve always worked outside of those teams looking in. Except for the data side—nightmare-inducing stuff.
    - 8y ago
e12e 8y ago
Well, there's : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)#Histo...

666lumberjack 8y ago

Always nice to see Scala being used for something like this

JorgeGT 8y ago

IANAL, but this seems to collide with their EULA with Commercial Type [1], since third party hosting of the font files is "strictly prohibited" and the font files are in fact all available in the repo, which certainly doesn't sound like "reasonable effort to prevent access/use by unlicensed parties". [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c3e5f3921631ec344a3eb83/static/src/fonts/Commercial%20Type%20EULA%20Web-general.pdf https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c...

oliwarner 8y ago
Though I'll not make any judgement towards "prevent access", the main license file[0] does state: > All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type (https://commercialtype.com/ https://commercialtype.com/), and may not be reproduced without permission. As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions manage to hold onto ownership. If I told my a prospective client that the websites they'd be paying me to build would forever more be —essentially— mine, they'd fire me pretty quickly. Same goes for most work product with employers. The Guardian commissioned these faces. Why would they accept such a crappy license? [0]: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE
- JorgeGT 8y ago
  Being outside the business, I found it surprising as well! The fonts are named GuardianTextWeb, GuardianSansWeb, etc., suggesting to me they have been purposely commissioned by The Guardian to obtain a differentiated look and feel. However the license is non-exclusive and revocable, and restrictive to the point that only web seems to be allowed. The fonts are indeed available for purchase: https://commercialtype.com/catalog/guardian https://commercialtype.com/catalog/guardian which from the point of view of protecting the look and feel of your brand that you just commissioned seems a bit weird.
- matt4077 8y ago
  A font family with the weights and other options a newspaper needs is a major undertaking. It's maybe 5 to 10 person-years of rather specialised work. For a publication constantly fighting to even break even, the costs aren't trivial. So, the answer obviously is: the Guardian got the font far cheaper by allowing it to be sold to other customers, and (relevant here) not paying for a license that allows sub-licensing (which would be completely useless to them, anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually a deal where no money changed hands, with the foundry getting the Guardian name for PR, and constant feedback during the design process. As to web design: unless otherwise specified, web design is covered by the same copyright rules as fonts (or movies, or books,...). The correct analogy actually is a customer selling your design to some third party, something that probably would upset quite a few designers. As for the customer changing a design: that's an infringement of the creator's so-called "moral rights". Its legality varies between jurisdictions, I believe.

duckson 8y ago

The docs include a recipe for Breton crêpes. :) [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-archives/crepes.md https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-arc...

littlestymaar 8y ago
Hilarious! What the heck is it doing here?
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  I prefer it over the suicide.mp3 we found in a proprietary software's code base
  - clarkey252 8y ago
    Did you listen to it?
  - monetus 8y ago
    Umm... Do you mind if I ask for some context there?
    - thecatspaw 8y ago
      I dont really have any. All context I can provide is that someone told me to go look at that expensive frameworks sourcecode and search for a suicide.mp3. All it contains is a loud scream I think, and the framework provider pretends the file is not there
- muglug 8y ago
  The blame has it: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/commit/9194aa952c93b3fefa17dc9306cd5af034d56dff https://github.com/guardian/frontend/commit/9194aa952c93b3fe... by https://www.kaelig.fr/ https://www.kaelig.fr/
- Operyl 8y ago

ceolin 8y ago

One more reason to support them. Even if you don't always agree with their opinions, it's nice to move away from commercial journalism and keep things as open and transparent as possible.

k1m 8y ago
It's nice to move away from commercial journalism, I agree. But the Guardian is very much commercial journalism. See http://expressiveegg.org/2017/02/07/guardian-bothering/ http://expressiveegg.org/2017/02/07/guardian-bothering/ and https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-guardians-scott-trust/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-s...
swarnie_ 8y ago
The Guardian is both commercial and pretty left wing, i prefer a more balanced view of my news.
- Brometheus 8y ago
  Fox News :D
  - swarnie_ 8y ago
    Haha, how any of you state side manage to watch Fox has always been a mystery for me.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Pro wrestling is also popular here.
      - krapp 8y ago
        Yeah, but people know that's fake...
        8y ago

RyanShook 8y ago

So is the the guardian considered a monolithic app? Does this source include CMS components?

theefer 8y ago
The frontend repository above is only for the user-facing front-end website (aka the guardian.com). Other back-end components such as the content API and the content creation tool (Composer) are separate projects in their own private repos (not open source). That said the Guardian has many other open source projects on their GitHub org [1], including their image management tool for instance [2]. [1] https://github.com/guardian https://github.com/guardian [2] https://github.com/guardian/grid https://github.com/guardian/grid

microcolonel 8y ago

Aside: seems they still have this component deployed, but for some reason it is not the same in master as it is on the site. https://github.com/guardian/thrashers/commit/dd4b41d48e71cb845b405b050f3ada3e73da2512#diff-e408c2ad20b4421c25ecfeefe75c5b1a https://github.com/guardian/thrashers/commit/dd4b41d48e71cb8...

philipov 8y ago

I hope this doesn't contradict journalistic ethics to not reveal their source!

bmmayer1 8y ago
This deserves an upvote and extra points for creativity.
- throwawaylolx 8y ago
  Both of these comments belong on reddit, not here.
  - ant6n 8y ago
    The comment, which marks other comments as belonging on reddit, very much belongs on hacker news.
  - agluszak 8y ago
    Why?
    - upzone3 8y ago
      No fun! No fun ever! We are very serious.
    - SargeZT 8y ago
      The first one is fine, it's humorous and relevant to the topic. The reply is pointless though, it's only talking about moderation of the topic.
      - stochastic_monk 8y ago
        Guidelines say that talking about votes is pointless and therefore against the rules. “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”

Fiahil 8y ago

I was surprised that they chose Make for the frontend assets, but sticked to SBT for the scala app. Wouldn't it make sens to have everything under one build system, _especially_ because SBT is an absolute pain to work with? This comment is a subjective personal view. If you like SBT, please say it out loud.

justinph 8y ago
Make is a pretty decent way to put all your build commands under one very widely understood format. There are commands in there that run bash scripts, node, etc.

neverminder 8y ago

I see they're using Scala/Play stack for the backend, excellent choice.

lcnmrn 8y ago

Yet another over engineered site.