3 ms·

Putting the I Back in IDE: Towards a GitHub Explorer

3 points by stepstop 6y ago

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
For me the killer feature of this is the " you get diffs that can take you, in a single keystroke, to the very lines that were changed – loaded right there in your editor." Combined with branches being sandboxed had me extremely interested. Both of these have been a personal pain point/pinch point. With that said, the mere mention of keybindings had me running for the hills (muscle memory, user training, etc.) In fairness they do end with "One hopes the idea is intriguing enough to encourage development elsewhere". While I'm not going to be the one picking up on that one, it has made me realize that the things I growl at about Github are experienced by others so yes, there is a market for something like this because up till the point of the keybindings I had my wallet open and was shouting 'here, take my money, I want this'
chmaynard 6y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16701830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16701830 How exciting! Jane Street developed an internal tool to augment the GitHub UI. Unfortunately, the code is proprietary, the features and UI are tailored to their own requirements, and the tool is not available in any form to the general public. So what's the purpose of this blog post?
- thedufer 6y ago
  Your question is answered quite directly in the post: > The goal of this post, then, is just to show off what the result looks like – to show you what kind of workflow is possible – in the hope that it inspires similar tools in other ecosystems. Also, it is not built on GitHub, it is built on an internal code review system (and it is not even built on git, it is backed by hg instead) so it likely wouldn't be useful to anyone to open-source it.
  - chmaynard 6y ago
    > Your question is answered quite directly in the post You're right, I didn't read the post carefully. Thanks for the clarification. > it likely wouldn't be useful to anyone to open-source it All source code is potentially useful to someone. I doubt if open-sourcing Feature Explorer would reveal any of Jane Street's trade secrets. Why not just do it?

3 points by stepstop 6y ago

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago

For me the killer feature of this is the " you get diffs that can take you, in a single keystroke, to the very lines that were changed – loaded right there in your editor." Combined with branches being sandboxed had me extremely interested. Both of these have been a personal pain point/pinch point. With that said, the mere mention of keybindings had me running for the hills (muscle memory, user training, etc.) In fairness they do end with "One hopes the idea is intriguing enough to encourage development elsewhere". While I'm not going to be the one picking up on that one, it has made me realize that the things I growl at about Github are experienced by others so yes, there is a market for something like this because up till the point of the keybindings I had my wallet open and was shouting 'here, take my money, I want this'

chmaynard 6y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16701830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16701830 How exciting! Jane Street developed an internal tool to augment the GitHub UI. Unfortunately, the code is proprietary, the features and UI are tailored to their own requirements, and the tool is not available in any form to the general public. So what's the purpose of this blog post?

thedufer 6y ago
Your question is answered quite directly in the post: > The goal of this post, then, is just to show off what the result looks like – to show you what kind of workflow is possible – in the hope that it inspires similar tools in other ecosystems. Also, it is not built on GitHub, it is built on an internal code review system (and it is not even built on git, it is backed by hg instead) so it likely wouldn't be useful to anyone to open-source it.
- chmaynard 6y ago
  > Your question is answered quite directly in the post You're right, I didn't read the post carefully. Thanks for the clarification. > it likely wouldn't be useful to anyone to open-source it All source code is potentially useful to someone. I doubt if open-sourcing Feature Explorer would reveal any of Jane Street's trade secrets. Why not just do it?