zbowling

40 ms·

361.
by zbowling 15y ago
a text link?
362.
by zbowling 15y ago
If RSS was still relevant, this would be awesome.
363.
by zbowling 15y ago
Yes, this is my biggest issue. I don't squash my commits like I should but this comes from our company repo and just gets imported. I tend to look at the last commit and just compare diffs for feature branch.
364.
by zbowling 15y ago
entirely?
365.
by zbowling 15y ago
Thanks! Very kind words. The one case I didn't link but talked about was my co-worker Michael's snipmate.vim project. https://github.com/msanders/snipmate.vim He stopped working on it because he felt it was dead end to keep supporting it
366.
by zbowling 15y ago
Not all forks are equal, but GitHub shouldn't treat them differently regardless if they are they are the original fork or not. The only exception is if the fork contains no changes of it's own and could be fast-forward merged into the fork
367.
by zbowling 15y ago
Exactly. Branches do this already (they hide if they can be fast-forwarded). If you can fast-forward merge a fork into the local one, it should be hidden when I viewing the network page, just like local branches. The network graph they rend
368.
by zbowling 15y ago
I thought the same thing. You can switch the "root" if you coordinate with the root repo owner and GitHub support. Often those projects are dead or the maintainer doesn't respond.
369.
by zbowling 15y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't believe I was rambling. There is a flaw in the approach that they are taking. I made this clear several times by pointing out Linus's talk and the background of forking on Git. When I make an argument, I try to be tho
370.
by zbowling 15y ago
I'm just going to say that I was trolling instead of admit that I made another mistake.
371.
by zbowling 15y ago
Sorry. I didn't expect this to be trending on HackerNews or I would of done another pass over it for grammar. Edit: fixed https://github.com/zbowling/zbowling.github.com/commit/84ece...
372.
by zbowling 15y ago
I was actually writing a blog post on this issue as we speak. GitHub's approach is broken to how they handle forks. It's a long post but I updated it to mention your comment here. http://zbowling.github.com/blog/2011/11/25/github/
373.
by zbowling 15y ago
All this technology and Rdio is still growing faster around these parts. Guess amazing technology doesn't always help you win the game.
374.
by zbowling 15y ago
Everything has it's limits. Google and Facebook don't release much without testing internally for a while. Neither does Twitter.
375.
by zbowling 15y ago
I'm vandal pratroller myself. Speedy deletions have an extremely strict criteria. Only very clear violations of policy are allowed to be speedy deleted like vandalism or recreating a page that was already AfD'd. Notability is naturally one
376.
by zbowling 15y ago
sigh It doesn't work like that.
377.
by zbowling 15y ago
No. He clearly over and over ignored the information infront of him and proceded to do what he wanted. Then he complained about it.
378.
by zbowling 15y ago
What I'm saying is that there is no real line that you speak of. It doesn't exist. If you use wikipedia enough you will realize that. People rise to being admins by editing wikipedia themselves enough and trying to maintain a few articles a
379.
by zbowling 15y ago
There are simply way to many forms and inputs we have to deal with on Wikipedia to make it a one off for every case. We eat our dog food all over wikipedia for that reason. Personal user styles and javascripts are even stored as wiki-pages.
380.
by zbowling 15y ago
You spent half an hour and never did submit it for review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Activ... There are no active discussions on this topic at all. This page took me 5 seconds to find with Google. I also found
381.
by zbowling 15y ago
Consensus cannot be found in votes alone. Don't over simplify things. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:!VOTE#Straw_poll_guid... If you see the world in black and white, y
382.
by zbowling 15y ago
We go out of our way on Wikipedia to make everyone feel welcome to edit anything. If someone makes a good faith mistake, more often or not, you are sent a welcome message fairly quickly by either a vandal patroller or an admin. New users wi
383.
by zbowling 15y ago
See my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3273124
384.
by zbowling 15y ago
This is backwards. I'm not an admin on wikipedia (but I do have admin revert and reviewer flags) but I do help "run" wikipedia only because I participate in it. I been vandal patroller for years. I follow the AfDs and other actions and cont
385.
by zbowling 15y ago
It's really not all that complicated. The only process that really has a lot of discussion is when people have disagreements and are trying to come up with a sane way that allows everyone to get to the best content possible. Only in those s
386.
by zbowling 15y ago
It's an archived discussion under Articles for Deletion (AfD). At the top of the page is a bread crumb back to the deletion process. (Someone should probably update the template for the archive notice to have a link maybe for those that stu
387.
by zbowling 15y ago
I joined this discussion at 32 comments and the all down-voted comments ones were people with the same sentiment. I really don't understand the anti-wikipedia sentiment hackernews is having in general around this. I've been through the AfD
388.
by zbowling 15y ago
I don't understand why you are getting down-voted for your comment. This is exactly what happens. I've been in on more than 30 or 40 so AfD discussions. There is usually a deep debate of it. In the end it's not about votes either. We leave
389.
by zbowling 15y ago
It's not bureaucratic as much you think. There is a system that is very easy to follow. 1. First they missed the delete review that normally waits about 7 days before taking action. 2. Upon discovering that their page was deleted found the
390.
by zbowling 15y ago
I have the same problem with my own page on this site.

More ›