GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by paulddraper on Saturday October 24, 2015 @05:36PM (#10444948)

> Case in point: if a very popular Github repository (such as the one for the Linux kernel) decided to start using LFS for some of their files, they would instantly alienate all of their users. They would no longer be able to properly fork the project, or even clone it to get its binary files stored via LFS. Nobody would be able to send a pull request to Linus as a result without considerable effort.

Odd example. Linux doesn't use GitHub pull requests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by eridius on Saturday October 24, 2015 @06:35PM (#10445139)

I would imagine that there's a number of people out there who still fork the GitHub mirror of Linux and use that to build their pull requests (which are then submitted via email rather than over GitHub, but which would presumably have the exact same issues).

In fact, there are currently 10,532 forks according to GitHub.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by Jasper_ on Saturday October 24, 2015 @05:58PM (#10445011)

They still use pull requests, though, just in the form of email-based ones.

https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by paulddraper on Saturday October 24, 2015 @08:08PM (#10445382)

Sure. With git-fu and enough emails, you can replicate anything done in GitHub.

I'm just saying it's a very odd choice for an example of GitHub screwing over workflows.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by jumpwah on Saturday October 24, 2015 @06:33PM (#10445134)

Except that's not a "pull request".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by Vendan on Saturday October 24, 2015 @06:49PM (#10445179)

Except it is. Just cause github does pull requests differently doesn't mean you can't do pull requests in pure git. Remember, git came before github.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by jumpwah on Sunday October 25, 2015 @11:28PM (#10449466)

> Remember, git came before github.

That's exactly my point. Using a "request-pull" instead of a "pull-request" will probably mean you can do this git-lfs thing with it. My understanding was that it was not working with "forked" repositories, which you need to have to make a "pull request". To make a "request pull" (or to just send a patch file), you don't need to "fork". ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by Deinumite on Saturday October 24, 2015 @05:48PM (#10444980)

Yeah I am assuming OP doesn't realize that patches are sent to the Linux kernel through emails.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by megastep on Saturday October 24, 2015 @07:14PM (#10445246)

I do, actually. I just noticed that there was a large Kernel git repo hosted on Github, and figured it would make a good example of a large, popular repository. I'm not surprised Linus is not actually using Github, so my bad for not stressing that this was more hypothetical than meant as a statement of fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source by paulddraper on Saturday October 24, 2015 @08:11PM (#10445391)

There are literally thousands of uber-popular projects that are deeply integrated with GitHub. I recommend choosing one of those for an example.

Line NodeJS or something.

[ Parent | on HN ]