3 ms·
Honest answer: Because I want to focus on distributing software rather than a generic "one size fits all" (no one) upload anything model. It wasn't a good solut
by kneath 14y ago
Honest answer: Because I want to focus on distributing software rather than a generic "one size fits all" (no one) upload anything model. It wasn't a good solution. S3 is a better solution.
Uploads may be going away, but the functionality behind it is being focused in a more usable, elegant way. Case in point: image attachments (the primary use for our uploads section until Friday). Which has all of the legal and support ramifications of the old Uploads section.
- wooster 14y agoIt was a great solution for those of us who used it. It was also backed by S3 and Amazon CloudFront (as far as I can tell), and was integrated into the site, rather than being forced onto a wiki page or some such. For a lot of us, the GitHub page was the project homepage. Now we're going to be forced elsewhere, like BitBucket.
- Surio 14y agoSorry, but don't think you answered anything at all. From my own experience and anecdata, software development workflow is not as clear cut as envisaged by github's definition of what constitutes "elegance" or "good solution", but by the constraints faced by the development teams and their internal working framework. Here's the kicker in your reply, retaining the upload functionality (for images, which can be large in the MB size as well), but removing it just for binaries makes no sense to me.