7 ms·

TFA suggests that the official git repo for the Linux kernel is on GitHub. I wonder if they really did their research

by brirec 4y ago

Shared404 4y ago
Was coming here to say almost the same thing - pretty sure the kernels "de-facto home" is not in fact GitHub. Perhaps it was just a marketing person writing this who googled "Big open source github".
- cfuendev 4y ago
  Lol, thought the same when I read "CPython".. Okay? Why not mention stuff like Godot and Monogame? Those are things the OSS-Gaming community are more familiar with. And why not say "The CPython Interpreter"? As if everyone knew what CPython was.
cactusplant7374 4y ago
What is the reason for hosting it elsewhere? My cursory Google searches have failed me.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  The historical reason is https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674 https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546... Perhaps some of these issues have been fixed by now, but the Linux project has been going on just fine without GitHub (git was even invented for the Linux kernel project itself even before GitHub existed) so there doesn't seem to be any reason to switch even if all the mentioned problems were to be fixed
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    Some good old Torvalds roasting going on in that thread.
    - solardev 4y ago
      Yikes. I didn't know the dude was so prickly. Glad I'm not a contributor.
      - __alexs 4y ago
        He's mellowed a bit as the years have gone on but yeah, he sure is a character.
      - _Algernon_ 4y ago
        I do find them fun to read, but yeah being the target of one must be rough. Though it probably contributes to the quality of the Linux kernel.
      - Longhanks 4y ago
        With his attitude, the kernel has reached enormous market share, excellent performance, high quality and worldwide adoption. I’m sure it will be fine without your contribution.
        solardev 4y ago
        Lol yes I'm sure it'll be fine too. It made me lose some respect for him, but he couldn't care less what I think lol.
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        No one knows "what would have been different", but it is very possible that the success happened not because, but despite of Linus rants. And if he would have had self reflexion earlier, I might now be able to recommend Linux to non tech people and enjoy a laptop without suspend and hibernation issues. Just a theory.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        No, Linus has a way of seeing straight through bullshit to the heart of the matter. You may not like that how he expresses himself, but a part of that is making it very clear where the bullshit is. For example, his take on security bug prioritization. His argument is that all bugs have potential security ramifications in the kernel, therefore calling something a security bug is not useful, it's just a bug. "Security people" want special treatment of their reports and he refused to give it to them.
  - sergiotapia 4y ago
    He's amazing
  - avarun 4y ago
    That thread is hilarious to look back on, now that history has proven Linus was incorrect about both: - word-wrapping (the correct approach is to indicate preformatted text in markup and allow the viewer to control wrapping for all other text) - his own demeanor (Linus stepped down in 2018 from his role as BDFL of Linux to "get some assistance on how to understand people’s emotions and respond appropriately").
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- codetrotter 4y ago
  Linux kernel development has been coordinated via mailing lists for ages. Linus wrote the git version control system specifically to suit the development of Linux. GitHub made git mainstream, and they made lots of great features for the masses. But there is no reason for the Linux project to change the way that they like to work just because of that. Still, a copy of the Linux source tree is also hosted on GitHub. So it seems to me that everyone gets what they want. Linux get to continue their development in the way that they like to do it. People on GitHub can easily find the copy of Linux on GH, and browse the sources there. And they can create forks of the Linux sources on GH too.
Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
The source is published to GitHub though, no? https://github.com/torvalds/linux https://github.com/torvalds/linux It's an easy mistake to make, the code is there and there's nothing to suggest it's a mirror.
- Arnavion 4y ago
  That said, every PR receives a bot comment indicating that the GH repo is a mirror and the user needs to submit a patch to LKML. And yet there are currently 312 open PRs on the repo. I've always wondered how people manage to know enough about the kernel to be able to contribute a PR to it, yet don't know the GH repo is a mirror and seemingly ignore the bot response and leave their PR opened.
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    I'm surprised with the massive number of auto-close-bots on GH (combined with the kernel's development culture) that they don't just auto-close them I've also never understood why GH allows turning off issues, but not turning off PRs
  - scatters 4y ago
    People are aware the PR isn't going to be accepted; they just want to publish it somewhere.
  - ratcline 4y ago
    I believe this is often people who ARE in fact contributing via the mailing list -- but want a track record tied to their GH account.

TFA suggests that the official git repo for the Linux kernel is on GitHub. I wonder if they really did their research

by brirec 4y ago

TFA suggests that the official git repo for the Linux kernel is on GitHub. I wonder if they really did their research

Was coming here to say almost the same thing - pretty sure the kernels "de-facto home" is not in fact GitHub. Perhaps it was just a marketing person writing this who googled "Big open source github".

cfuendev 4y ago
Lol, thought the same when I read "CPython".. Okay? Why not mention stuff like Godot and Monogame? Those are things the OSS-Gaming community are more familiar with. And why not say "The CPython Interpreter"? As if everyone knew what CPython was.

cactusplant7374 4y ago

What is the reason for hosting it elsewhere? My cursory Google searches have failed me.

ithkuil 4y ago
The historical reason is https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674 https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546... Perhaps some of these issues have been fixed by now, but the Linux project has been going on just fine without GitHub (git was even invented for the Linux kernel project itself even before GitHub existed) so there doesn't seem to be any reason to switch even if all the mentioned problems were to be fixed
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  Some good old Torvalds roasting going on in that thread.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Yikes. I didn't know the dude was so prickly. Glad I'm not a contributor.
    - __alexs 4y ago
      He's mellowed a bit as the years have gone on but yeah, he sure is a character.
    - _Algernon_ 4y ago
      I do find them fun to read, but yeah being the target of one must be rough. Though it probably contributes to the quality of the Linux kernel.
    - Longhanks 4y ago
      With his attitude, the kernel has reached enormous market share, excellent performance, high quality and worldwide adoption. I’m sure it will be fine without your contribution.
      - solardev 4y ago
        Lol yes I'm sure it'll be fine too. It made me lose some respect for him, but he couldn't care less what I think lol.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        No one knows "what would have been different", but it is very possible that the success happened not because, but despite of Linus rants. And if he would have had self reflexion earlier, I might now be able to recommend Linux to non tech people and enjoy a laptop without suspend and hibernation issues. Just a theory.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        No, Linus has a way of seeing straight through bullshit to the heart of the matter. You may not like that how he expresses himself, but a part of that is making it very clear where the bullshit is. For example, his take on security bug prioritization. His argument is that all bugs have potential security ramifications in the kernel, therefore calling something a security bug is not useful, it's just a bug. "Security people" want special treatment of their reports and he refused to give it to them.
- sergiotapia 4y ago
  He's amazing
- avarun 4y ago
  That thread is hilarious to look back on, now that history has proven Linus was incorrect about both: - word-wrapping (the correct approach is to indicate preformatted text in markup and allow the viewer to control wrapping for all other text) - his own demeanor (Linus stepped down in 2018 from his role as BDFL of Linux to "get some assistance on how to understand people’s emotions and respond appropriately").
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
codetrotter 4y ago
Linux kernel development has been coordinated via mailing lists for ages. Linus wrote the git version control system specifically to suit the development of Linux. GitHub made git mainstream, and they made lots of great features for the masses. But there is no reason for the Linux project to change the way that they like to work just because of that. Still, a copy of the Linux source tree is also hosted on GitHub. So it seems to me that everyone gets what they want. Linux get to continue their development in the way that they like to do it. People on GitHub can easily find the copy of Linux on GH, and browse the sources there. And they can create forks of the Linux sources on GH too.

Philip-J-Fry 4y ago

The source is published to GitHub though, no? https://github.com/torvalds/linux https://github.com/torvalds/linux It's an easy mistake to make, the code is there and there's nothing to suggest it's a mirror.

Arnavion 4y ago
That said, every PR receives a bot comment indicating that the GH repo is a mirror and the user needs to submit a patch to LKML. And yet there are currently 312 open PRs on the repo. I've always wondered how people manage to know enough about the kernel to be able to contribute a PR to it, yet don't know the GH repo is a mirror and seemingly ignore the bot response and leave their PR opened.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  I'm surprised with the massive number of auto-close-bots on GH (combined with the kernel's development culture) that they don't just auto-close them I've also never understood why GH allows turning off issues, but not turning off PRs
- scatters 4y ago
  People are aware the PR isn't going to be accepted; they just want to publish it somewhere.
- ratcline 4y ago
  I believe this is often people who ARE in fact contributing via the mailing list -- but want a track record tied to their GH account.