4 ms·
Pull-requests and forks are only a piece here. It's not the only one implemented by tools that extend Git (Phabricator and Gerrit, for instance, support pre-co
by martius 6y ago
Pull-requests and forks are only a piece here.
It's not the only one implemented by tools that extend Git (Phabricator and Gerrit, for instance, support pre-commit workflow).
Github also brings a bug tracker (albeit a simple one), discoverability, hosting (obviously) and integration with many useful tools (CI, documentation generators, etc). All of this is easy to use.
These pieces greatly contribute to the success of many open-source projects (of various sizes). Github "extinguishes" alternative because of this, not because it designed an alternative to email-based workflows.
I suppose that many projects (open-source or not) want to use tools that extends Git. Maybe what we need is a standard making these tools interoperable and open.
- bccdee 6y agoYeah, I agree. There are open-source Github clones like Gitlab and Gitea that still follow Github's web UI model, so I think it's weird to pose this as a conflict between Github and plain-text email when it's two separate conflicts: one between proprietary Github software and other open-source hosted git systems, and the other between the plain-text email model and the more popular web UI model.
- Seirdy 6y agoI responded to this argument in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24295610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24295610 TLDR: the alternatives are also centralized and give you vendor lock-in since issues/PRs are tied to the instance.