4 ms·

I think my previous comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28208138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28208138) highlights why it's problematic to lin

I think my previous comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28208138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28208138) highlights why it's problematic to link to release notes from an organization that is not the same organization that actually does the work/releases. In this case, GitHub didn't mention anything about `send-email`, because it's a direct competitor to themselves.

tyre 5y ago
> because it's a direct competitor to themselves. Gonna need a source on this one.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Source? GitHub is meant for collaborating on Git repositories. One of the main features they have are Pull Requests, which basically is the `send-email` feature but without email, with a web UI and some other features on top of PRs.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    So in the same way that say, a motorcycle and a car are competitors. You can use them for some of the same things ( move yourself), but one of them does many more things.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  We can speculate on why they would omit such a thing, but there's a clear conflict of interest here.
jasode 5y ago
>I think my previous comment ([...]) highlights why it's problematic to link to release notes from an organization that is not the same organization that actually does the work/releases. You're characterization of it being "problematic to link to Github" vs Git's official mailing list is overlooking the cause & effect of how stories end up on the front page. If most readers would prefer more "official" links from domain *.kernel.org, people can submit them, as they have done so in the past. Examples: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=git%201.%20.kernel.org&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=git%202.%20.kernel.org&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Of course, after submission, people also need to upvote them. It's wrong (and misleading) to later change a submission linking to Github blog to the kernel.org url. The upvoters may have found the context and explanations from Github's post to be more helpful than the kernel.org post. (And as stated before, the Github post has the extra bonus of leading readers to the kernel.org release notes. But the opposite is not true, the kernel.org post does not lead to Github's extra explanations about the repack algorithm.) In your opinion, where is the root cause of the "problem" as you call it? The submitters? The upvoters? The HN mods that leave the original thread url unchanged? >In this case, GitHub didn't mention anything about `send-email`, because it's a direct competitor to themselves. Hang on... let's level set here with some realism and not exaggerate. The "git send-email" is not a "direct" competitor to Github. Maybe GitLab could be described as a direct competitor. Here's a previous thread where some folks don't want to mess with send-email because it's a hassle with a bunch of replies lecturing them that they're doing it wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13631069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13631069 It doesn't matter if those posters' complaints about send-email are wrong. The point is that send-email caters to a different type of git user and it's not a direct threat to Github at all. Also, if Github was truly worried about users defecting to "git send-email", why would they deliberately link to the official Git notes that highlights git send-email as the 1st bulllet point ?!? If we entertained your theory that "git send-email" kills Github's business model, wouldn't they omit the link to keep readers in the dark?
- karmanyaahm 5y ago
  done https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28213458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28213458

tyre 5y ago

> because it's a direct competitor to themselves. Gonna need a source on this one.

capableweb 5y ago
Source? GitHub is meant for collaborating on Git repositories. One of the main features they have are Pull Requests, which basically is the `send-email` feature but without email, with a web UI and some other features on top of PRs.
- sofixa 5y ago
  So in the same way that say, a motorcycle and a car are competitors. You can use them for some of the same things ( move yourself), but one of them does many more things.
nextaccountic 5y ago
We can speculate on why they would omit such a thing, but there's a clear conflict of interest here.

jasode 5y ago

>I think my previous comment ([...]) highlights why it's problematic to link to release notes from an organization that is not the same organization that actually does the work/releases. You're characterization of it being "problematic to link to Github" vs Git's official mailing list is overlooking the cause & effect of how stories end up on the front page. If most readers would prefer more "official" links from domain *.kernel.org, people can submit them, as they have done so in the past. Examples: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=git%201.%20.kernel.org&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=git%202.%20.kernel.org&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Of course, after submission, people also need to upvote them. It's wrong (and misleading) to later change a submission linking to Github blog to the kernel.org url. The upvoters may have found the context and explanations from Github's post to be more helpful than the kernel.org post. (And as stated before, the Github post has the extra bonus of leading readers to the kernel.org release notes. But the opposite is not true, the kernel.org post does not lead to Github's extra explanations about the repack algorithm.) In your opinion, where is the root cause of the "problem" as you call it? The submitters? The upvoters? The HN mods that leave the original thread url unchanged? >In this case, GitHub didn't mention anything about `send-email`, because it's a direct competitor to themselves. Hang on... let's level set here with some realism and not exaggerate. The "git send-email" is not a "direct" competitor to Github. Maybe GitLab could be described as a direct competitor. Here's a previous thread where some folks don't want to mess with send-email because it's a hassle with a bunch of replies lecturing them that they're doing it wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13631069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13631069 It doesn't matter if those posters' complaints about send-email are wrong. The point is that send-email caters to a different type of git user and it's not a direct threat to Github at all. Also, if Github was truly worried about users defecting to "git send-email", why would they deliberately link to the official Git notes that highlights git send-email as the 1st bulllet point ?!? If we entertained your theory that "git send-email" kills Github's business model, wouldn't they omit the link to keep readers in the dark?

karmanyaahm 5y ago
done https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28213458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28213458