Re:
by otikik on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @06:14PM
(#33616561)
GitHub’s success was in part due to it making Git interface’s bareable. Imagine an UX so bad it generates a whole industry.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Lol wut. Github's success is in being a remote code repository.
So your claim is that GitHub would be equally successful if their website was just information about how to push to a git remote hosted by them?
Re:
by UncleEntity on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @10:31PM
(#33618479)
SourceForge was pretty successful back in the day and they were pretty bland compared to GitHub.
Re:
by xyzzy_plugh on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @10:52PM
(#33618618)
GitHub's UX is so incredibly terrible. Pull Requests are horrible -- even mailing lists are better and that's impressive.
GitHub's UX is so bad it has indeed generated a whole industry of out-of-band review tools.
I don't think this is true. GitHub (the website) became very successful with virtually no feature overlap with the git CLI. I suppose you could say that GitHub pull requests and forks are a replacement for git's built-in email-based workflow, but that's not really what people complain about when they say git is hard to use (and it's not like the other DVCSes had obviously better solutions).