3 ms·

It's frustrating that they'd release a new CLI and nowhere address its relation to their existing 'hub' CLI. Edit: found a note in their readme on github: http

by kbd 7y ago

It's frustrating that they'd release a new CLI and nowhere address its relation to their existing 'hub' CLI. Edit: found a note in their readme on github: https://github.com/cli/cli#comparison-with-hub https://github.com/cli/cli#comparison-with-hub > For many years, hub was the unofficial GitHub CLI tool. gh is a new project for us to explore what an official GitHub CLI tool can look like with a fundamentally different design. While both tools bring GitHub to the terminal, hub behaves as a proxy to git and gh is a standalone tool.

OJFord 7y ago
> hub was the unofficial GitHub CLI tool. 'unofficial'... https://hub.github.com/ https://hub.github.com/ I officially despise how meaningless '[un]official' has become.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  I love it. There being a spectrum between "blessed" and "work of a random" means that we get more software. And in the end, since it's open source, it's up to me whether I derive value from it.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    ? My point is that it wasn't 'work of a random'; it was in a repo under the `github` org; with a first-party GitHub website. OSS is great, I agree, my issue is just with the weird description of GitHub's older similar tool.
    - codingaround 7y ago
      and done by one of the founders. But github despises its own 2 founders. As it grew, culture changed and founders became enemies. So it became better to write a new tool rather that cooperating with some people. Hub has been in development since 2009, for sure the gh team could had cooperated.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      That's my point. If a company can release something without being on the hook for it, that's awesome. It encourages them to release half-baked stuff alongside their platinum stuff which is something I desire far more than having them only release stuff that's full-baked. Simply put, I prioritize more software way more than I prioritize officialness etc.
dcchambers 7y ago
Also see this blog post from the maintainer of Hub, and lead of this new project: https://mislav.net/2020/01/github-cli/ https://mislav.net/2020/01/github-cli/ Has some good incite in the history of hub, and why they chose to move this direction.

by kbd 7y ago

OJFord 7y ago

> hub was the unofficial GitHub CLI tool. 'unofficial'... https://hub.github.com/ https://hub.github.com/ I officially despise how meaningless '[un]official' has become.

scarejunba 7y ago
I love it. There being a spectrum between "blessed" and "work of a random" means that we get more software. And in the end, since it's open source, it's up to me whether I derive value from it.
- OJFord 7y ago
  ? My point is that it wasn't 'work of a random'; it was in a repo under the `github` org; with a first-party GitHub website. OSS is great, I agree, my issue is just with the weird description of GitHub's older similar tool.
  - codingaround 7y ago
    and done by one of the founders. But github despises its own 2 founders. As it grew, culture changed and founders became enemies. So it became better to write a new tool rather that cooperating with some people. Hub has been in development since 2009, for sure the gh team could had cooperated.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    That's my point. If a company can release something without being on the hook for it, that's awesome. It encourages them to release half-baked stuff alongside their platinum stuff which is something I desire far more than having them only release stuff that's full-baked. Simply put, I prioritize more software way more than I prioritize officialness etc.

dcchambers 7y ago

Also see this blog post from the maintainer of Hub, and lead of this new project: https://mislav.net/2020/01/github-cli/ https://mislav.net/2020/01/github-cli/ Has some good incite in the history of hub, and why they chose to move this direction.