3 ms·

Literally nothing from what you showed is a pleasant customer experience. Overly complex workflow that can be simplified by what GitHub is doing. Think of a be

by koluna 6y ago

Literally nothing from what you showed is a pleasant customer experience. Overly complex workflow that can be simplified by what GitHub is doing. Think of a beginner developer who wants to learn how to contribute to an open source project. If they would be put through the process you showed, it will be a meat grinder that is going to be error prone. Zero need for that when GitHub has a great UX that focuses on getting shit done instead of fiddling with conventions from the 90s.

cnst 6y ago
That's why there's shell completion, and history search; then with practice, keyboard shortcuts as well; all vastly improve productivity. I think a lot of people wrongly assume that GitHub is so "easy" that you don't actually have to spend any time to learn how to use it. But that's not the case at all. Moreover, GitHub has so many quirks, that most Enterprise shops don't use it internally for their own internal projects (unless they release said projects into OSS); so, when you work for any company that's not just a startup, you likely have to learn yet another set of tools. And again if you switch the company. Compare this with email. As the original article reveals, Linux and OpenBSD happen to have almost entirely identical workflows for patch submission, which is actually REALLY weird, considering that the two projects have entirely different histories, methodology, and use entirely different revision control systems, where OpenBSD still uses CVS, yet Linus Torvalds hated CVS so much, I recall that he refused to use it even before Git was ready and the licences for the predecessor system have already been withdrawn (I recall he hated CVS so much he simply used plain patches or tarballs).
- algorithmsRcool 6y ago
  > I think a lot of people wrongly assume that GitHub is so "easy" that you don't actually have to spend any time to learn how to use it. For a lot of people, probably the large majority of people, GitHub's (or GitLab's) UI is simpler to work with than a terminal. The overwhelming success and popularity of GitHub has demonstrated the value of it's UI. I just don't see how you could convince the Atom/VSCode generation of developers to go back to mailing lists. > so, when you work for any company that's not just a startup, you likely have to learn yet another set of tools. And again if you switch the company. As far as I am concerned, the email workflow is just "another set of tools" too. Except no company I've worked with or worked for has used it.
  - kasabali 6y ago
    > For a lot of people, probably the large majority of people, GitHub's (or GitLab's) UI is simpler to work with than a terminal. The topic isn't about majority of users. It is specifically about Linux kernel developers.
    - algorithmsRcool 6y ago
      Fair point, I've strayed from the topic at hand.

by koluna 6y ago

cnst 6y ago

That's why there's shell completion, and history search; then with practice, keyboard shortcuts as well; all vastly improve productivity. I think a lot of people wrongly assume that GitHub is so "easy" that you don't actually have to spend any time to learn how to use it. But that's not the case at all. Moreover, GitHub has so many quirks, that most Enterprise shops don't use it internally for their own internal projects (unless they release said projects into OSS); so, when you work for any company that's not just a startup, you likely have to learn yet another set of tools. And again if you switch the company. Compare this with email. As the original article reveals, Linux and OpenBSD happen to have almost entirely identical workflows for patch submission, which is actually REALLY weird, considering that the two projects have entirely different histories, methodology, and use entirely different revision control systems, where OpenBSD still uses CVS, yet Linus Torvalds hated CVS so much, I recall that he refused to use it even before Git was ready and the licences for the predecessor system have already been withdrawn (I recall he hated CVS so much he simply used plain patches or tarballs).

algorithmsRcool 6y ago
> I think a lot of people wrongly assume that GitHub is so "easy" that you don't actually have to spend any time to learn how to use it. For a lot of people, probably the large majority of people, GitHub's (or GitLab's) UI is simpler to work with than a terminal. The overwhelming success and popularity of GitHub has demonstrated the value of it's UI. I just don't see how you could convince the Atom/VSCode generation of developers to go back to mailing lists. > so, when you work for any company that's not just a startup, you likely have to learn yet another set of tools. And again if you switch the company. As far as I am concerned, the email workflow is just "another set of tools" too. Except no company I've worked with or worked for has used it.
- kasabali 6y ago
  > For a lot of people, probably the large majority of people, GitHub's (or GitLab's) UI is simpler to work with than a terminal. The topic isn't about majority of users. It is specifically about Linux kernel developers.
  - algorithmsRcool 6y ago
    Fair point, I've strayed from the topic at hand.