6 ms·

> Think, having your graphics designer able to make commits, or having someone who only wants to update docs. GitHub's web interface is pretty good for this.

the8472 5y ago
Until you need them to rewrite history because it consists of 20 "fix" and "update" commits.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  Then don't need them to rewrite history? That's kind of on you and your own OCD at that point. If you are making them use a PR workflow anyway, become friends with git options like using --first-parent to shallowly traverse the DAG and let git's tools give you a clean view. (Or use GitHub's PR Squash options, if you really must rewrite history.)
- OJFord 5y ago
  Someone that does that isn't going to meaningfully rewrite the history anyway, just squash on merge.
cxr 5y ago
Not really. People say stuff like this, but what they're really talking about is their own familiarity with GitHub (in the vein of <http://lighttable.com/2014/05/16/pain-we-forgot/ http://lighttable.com/2014/05/16/pain-we-forgot/>). What GitHub has going for it is that it is familiar to ("a majority of"?) working developers, and that it's better than both the competition and the Git CLI itself, but from a reality-adjusted perspective, GitHub is pretty bad, too. (Then when people like me make comments like this, others wrongly infer that it comes from a history of false starts and firsthand frustration, unable to conceive that anyone would speak up on this sort of thing if there weren't something personal at stake; no way that it could just be the result of empathy for the uninitiated.) It's pretty tragic that we've basically killed wikis —like, actual wikis—and regressed back to directories of text files managed by version control systems originally meant for handling program source code. That people then go on to call these wikis is basically an insult to history. 52028d35999a481e7cb19b14eae3bf66cb7c9c4fe2e15b56b55f3ccadffeee1f
- bostonsre 5y ago
  I mean you could have stuff that requires prs, but you could just use the ui pretty much like a wiki. 1. Go to dev branch 2. Find file and edit it 3. Commit change
  - cxr 5y ago
    That's not "pretty much like a wiki". That's the antithesis of a wiki. You've just described what the wiki was created to replace.
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      That seems a little drastic, how is it the opposite of a wiki? What are the steps to edit a wiki? Click edit page, make changes, add comment and submit. That sounds like almost the exact same steps to me.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - cxr 5y ago
        Try actually measuring it. Fix the 404 link: https://github.com/solid/solid-rest https://github.com/solid/solid-rest (It's the only link in the file.) Make sure you don't have your thumb on the scale.
        cxr 5y ago
        The unwillingness to venture into territory that would make the previous claims quantifiable (and falsifiable) is noteworthy. $ sha256sum "./PR?-ORLY.txt" 52028d35999a481e7cb19b14eae3bf66cb7c9c4fe2e15b56b55f3ccadffeee1f ./PR?-ORLY.txt $ cat "./PR?-ORLY.txt" Did you commit to source control and submit a pull request to post this comment?
- javajosh 5y ago
  Interestingly, Microsoft has a product called TFS that has a great wiki implementation: it's native markdown (with github enhancements), a decent in-browser editor/viewer, and it's backed by git. Plus it has some nice features that let you refer to people with the at-symbol (@) and work items (bugs, tasks, stories, features, etc) with a hash symbol (#), and some other stuff. Github itself has some of these features; I'm not aware of anything else like it (Tiddlywiki, ignoring it's unusual runtime, may be the closest that I'm aware of).

the8472 5y ago

Until you need them to rewrite history because it consists of 20 "fix" and "update" commits.

WorldMaker 5y ago
Then don't need them to rewrite history? That's kind of on you and your own OCD at that point. If you are making them use a PR workflow anyway, become friends with git options like using --first-parent to shallowly traverse the DAG and let git's tools give you a clean view. (Or use GitHub's PR Squash options, if you really must rewrite history.)
OJFord 5y ago
Someone that does that isn't going to meaningfully rewrite the history anyway, just squash on merge.

cxr 5y ago

Not really. People say stuff like this, but what they're really talking about is their own familiarity with GitHub (in the vein of <http://lighttable.com/2014/05/16/pain-we-forgot/ http://lighttable.com/2014/05/16/pain-we-forgot/>). What GitHub has going for it is that it is familiar to ("a majority of"?) working developers, and that it's better than both the competition and the Git CLI itself, but from a reality-adjusted perspective, GitHub is pretty bad, too. (Then when people like me make comments like this, others wrongly infer that it comes from a history of false starts and firsthand frustration, unable to conceive that anyone would speak up on this sort of thing if there weren't something personal at stake; no way that it could just be the result of empathy for the uninitiated.) It's pretty tragic that we've basically killed wikis —like, actual wikis—and regressed back to directories of text files managed by version control systems originally meant for handling program source code. That people then go on to call these wikis is basically an insult to history. 52028d35999a481e7cb19b14eae3bf66cb7c9c4fe2e15b56b55f3ccadffeee1f

bostonsre 5y ago
I mean you could have stuff that requires prs, but you could just use the ui pretty much like a wiki. 1. Go to dev branch 2. Find file and edit it 3. Commit change
- cxr 5y ago
  That's not "pretty much like a wiki". That's the antithesis of a wiki. You've just described what the wiki was created to replace.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    That seems a little drastic, how is it the opposite of a wiki? What are the steps to edit a wiki? Click edit page, make changes, add comment and submit. That sounds like almost the exact same steps to me.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - cxr 5y ago
      Try actually measuring it. Fix the 404 link: https://github.com/solid/solid-rest https://github.com/solid/solid-rest (It's the only link in the file.) Make sure you don't have your thumb on the scale.
      - cxr 5y ago
        The unwillingness to venture into territory that would make the previous claims quantifiable (and falsifiable) is noteworthy. $ sha256sum "./PR?-ORLY.txt" 52028d35999a481e7cb19b14eae3bf66cb7c9c4fe2e15b56b55f3ccadffeee1f ./PR?-ORLY.txt $ cat "./PR?-ORLY.txt" Did you commit to source control and submit a pull request to post this comment?
javajosh 5y ago
Interestingly, Microsoft has a product called TFS that has a great wiki implementation: it's native markdown (with github enhancements), a decent in-browser editor/viewer, and it's backed by git. Plus it has some nice features that let you refer to people with the at-symbol (@) and work items (bugs, tasks, stories, features, etc) with a hash symbol (#), and some other stuff. Github itself has some of these features; I'm not aware of anything else like it (Tiddlywiki, ignoring it's unusual runtime, may be the closest that I'm aware of).