5 ms·
RawGit serves raw files directly from GitHub with proper Content-Type header
- nacs 12y agoPrevious discussion from 2 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7579773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7579773
- cpayne 12y ago(honest question) is this a good thing? When would I want to use this?
- gojomo 12y agohttps://rawgit.com/faq#why https://rawgit.com/faq#why
- bagels 12y agoTo download an image asset. To download build that is checked in to github as part of the build process. Doing it through the github web interface takes a lot of clicks.
- anirudhtom 12y agoIn making demos on jsfiddle
- bruce_one 12y agoAlso useful when inserting scripts in a dev console.
- xem 12y agothe real question is, why Github doesn't do this directly?
- rtpg 12y agoprobably because they don't want to become a free CDN for people
- dbbolton 12y agoThat is answered in the FAQ. >They do this because serving raw files from a git repo is relatively inefficient, so they want to discourage people from using their GitHub repos for static file hosting.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoTo prevent using them as a file host. If you can just dump files (of whatever size, it doesn't really matter) onto github and serve them natively across the web then they become a file share or a CDN. They'd have to seriously lock down the rules on publicly available free repos if that happened (and they'd have a copyright nightmare on their hand as well). Whereas if they force git into the loop on the client end then it keeps them in that repo hosting butter zone.
- username42 12y agoIn fact I wonder why they do not have the problem yet.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoIt's too much work and there are better alternatives. Big files just won't work and wouldn't be superior to torrents. Small files would work but compared to imgur, flickr, youtube, pastebin, tumblr, blogger, etc. it's much more hassle to use github with no advantages.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]