[HN Gopher] A brief history of code search at GitHub
___________________________________________________________________
A brief history of code search at GitHub
Author : jakon89
Score : 53 points
Date : 2021-12-16 10:47 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.blog)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.blog)
| kreetx wrote:
| Given that this is a "history" I can't believe they don't mention
| grep.app. It's pretty much _the_ way to search entire github.
|
| There probably aren't as many drill-down features as the new
| official way, but speed and simplicity of UI more than make up
| for it.
| perk wrote:
| grep.app is excellent, but I don't think you can search the
| entire github, on the front page it says "Search across a half
| million git repos".
| pcj-github wrote:
| Sounds like it would have been very difficult to implement this
| without some excellent open source projects. Is github planning
| to open-source other parts of the system?
| Oddskar wrote:
| I still think the changes made to only index repos that had
| activity during the last year [1] was the wrong call, and
| potentially makes code search dangerous for those that do not
| understand this.
|
| At least for me a common use case for org-wide code searches is
| to answer questions like "is the library x still used somewhere?"
|
| To not have this include old potentially low-traffic repos is a
| very bad thing. I don't understand why they would do this for
| enterprise customers. Like we would pay extra to not have it be
| this way.
|
| [1] https://github.blog/changelog/2020-12-17-changes-to-code-
| sea...
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Unfortunately I lost trust in GitHub search a while ago. Can't
| find files, can't find an exact string reference. This can be
| dangerous in certain situations like you said. Hopefully I can
| start to gain trust in the new version when released but I
| don't really see myself using it again.
| prepend wrote:
| Same here. GitHub search sucks for authoritative, governance
| use cases. I got burned a few times and now just pull
| everything down myself and search it.
|
| I think there's code search companies but they are too
| expensive for me and I suppose some people really value it
| more highly.
|
| Comically, I need the old Google search appliance and just
| treat it as a web source for lots of my questions (who is
| using log4j, etc).
| wahern wrote:
| > I need the old Google search appliance
|
| Or Google Code Search! Which turned out to be Russ Cox's
| platform for developing RE2.
|
| Google Code Search was simply amazing. Killing Google Code
| Search really underlined how Google had given up on it's
| pro-social agenda. I mean, here was a best-in-class and as
| yet unmatched service, neatly tailored to both the needs of
| developers and to Google's expertise and operations, and
| they killed it. Why? Because it wasn't going to make any
| money? Was there ever an expectation that it would?
|
| The death of Google Books, when they removed countless
| scanned items, most of which were clearly out of copyright,
| was also painful. But I could understand how dealing with
| the barrage of copyright lawsuits was simply a bridge too
| far for Google. But Code Search? Why, oh, why!? :(
| mrslave wrote:
| > just pull everything down myself and search it.
|
| `grep -r` or `git-all grep` or something better?
| yellow_lead wrote:
| I'm not who you replied to but I use ag and it's pretty
| fast (faster than grep I think)
|
| https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher
| lathiat wrote:
| Yes this seems like a bad move to me too. Plenty of repos still
| useful may not change in a year. But still be relevant.
| bombcar wrote:
| It won't search forked repositories either, which is a pain
| when trying to find something - you're better off pulling and
| grepping.
|
| (If you have forked a long-dead project and are working on it
| Github support can "decouple" it from the original and then you
| can search it.)
| charcircuit wrote:
| I personally don't care about wait time that much for search. I
| would have for years loved a simple grep that you could do from a
| browser. Even if it took a minute, that would still be faster
| than what I've had to do: manually clone the repo locally and run
| a grep on it on my machine.
| aww_dang wrote:
| Was it always necessary to log in to use this feature?
| charcircuit wrote:
| For global code search it's been that way for quite a while
| quentinkent1 wrote:
| Why don't they reuse CodeQL to provide a true code search using
| maybe a subset of CodeQL capabilities?
| agustif wrote:
| =( I joined last week but still no preview
|
| > Join the GitHub Code Search Waitlist Access is limited during
| the technology preview of GitHub's future code search. Sign up
| today for your chance to try it and give your feedback.
|
| You're already on the waitlist for GitHub Code Search! We'll
| email you when we've enabled it on your account. Make sure your
| primary email address is up-to-date.
| colin353 wrote:
| Hey, I'm on the GitHub code search team. We've had a ton of
| people join the waitlist, sorry it's taking so long to get
| through everyone! We're hoping to get most people access early
| in the new year. Stay tuned!
| andybak wrote:
| Is there a list I can sign up to stay on the old code search
| forever? I'm really sad about the loss of old repos - I found
| that invaluable for finding interesting projects to learn
| from.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| It sounds like the old code search doesn't include old
| repos either:
| https://github.blog/changelog/2020-12-17-changes-to-code-
| sea...
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Maybe message someone internally?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-16 23:02 UTC)