[HN Gopher] GitHub-Next
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub-Next
Author : rahulpandita
Score : 153 points
Date : 2022-08-26 12:53 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (githubnext.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (githubnext.com)
| vi2837 wrote:
| Fun name, and they do what everyone do constantly: "exploring the
| future of technology and software beyond.." :)
| vemv wrote:
| > GitHub Next investigates the future of software development.
|
| Yesterday I tried to use Datadog's Github integration for
| stacktraces and it asked me for "access Github on my behalf".
|
| It's been the same since the beginning of Github - they leave
| integrators with no better options, and users with an ambiguous
| UI dialog / docs that downplay the scope being granted.
|
| Sooooo maybe fix your own stuff before making such grandiose
| claims?
| saurik wrote:
| Why wouldn't this be done over git? It seems almost ridiculous
| for this to be a GitHub-specific API and authentication
| mechanism instead of merely authorizing an SSH key from Datadog
| (which would then allow whatever this service is doing with the
| source code to also work for any other source code hosting
| solution).
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Metadata lives in the API, not the git repo. I would argue a
| github app with rotating hourly tokens which datadog seems to
| support is better than a users ssh key or an ssh key with
| access to many repos.
| hobofan wrote:
| Because DataDog's GitHub integration does in addition to git
| data also take GitHub data into account to provide a better
| user experience. E.g. for giving "this action broke this
| thing" insights giving you a clickable link to a GitHub PR
| instead of just providing you with a git SHA hash.
|
| They also provide a direct git integration, which as far as I
| can tell just is a reduced version of the GitHub one, with a
| featureset that seems reasonable if they only have the pure
| git data.
| [deleted]
| blondin wrote:
| honestly want a non-vscode plugin for copilot.
| PufPufPuf wrote:
| There are plugins for VSCode, VS, everything JetBrains and
| Neovim. What else could you want?
| speedgoose wrote:
| It exists for Neovim or jetbrains.
| [deleted]
| saos wrote:
| A nice diverse team they have there /s
| bern4444 wrote:
| Regarding visualization of codebases, something I've wanted for a
| long time is a graph of function calls across an entire project.
|
| I want to know all the callers and callees of every function.
| This shouldn't be too hard, we already have find references via
| LSP.
|
| Turning this into a graph would make it significantly easier to
| manage the entry and exit points of a code base and inform
| architecture decisions, refactors, type checking, hot paths etc.
| 0x09 wrote:
| Doxygen has the ability to generate these with its
| CALL_GRAPH/CALLER_GRAPH config, at least from each function
| individually. It can look quite funny when the depth isn't
| limited: https://i.imgur.com/3LMV71N.png
| avg_dev wrote:
| That's a cool idea. I don't know much about ASTs or anything
| but I know you are right about LSP being able to find most
| everything I am searching for in the mostly statically typed
| languages I've worked with. Would be fun to try that out over a
| weekend or three.
| cheald wrote:
| It's coming at it from the wrong end, but I do a lot of this
| with kcachegrind, particularly for tracking down hot paths in
| Ruby, which is so dynamic that static analysis of nigh
| impossible. At least for the purposes of checking hot paths,
| it's quite useful.
| madelyn wrote:
| I ended up doing this for our python codebases at work.
|
| The AST module was super handy as you'd expect. The script
| would optionally take some filters to reduce the size of the
| generated graph, and then it sent all the info to Graphiz (it
| emitted DOT, too, so it could be version controlled!!)
|
| It was extremely fun, highly recommended.
| kelsolaar wrote:
| I have been looking for something like that for a while and
| your reply made me look again. I just came across Codemap
| (haven't tried): https://codemap.app/
| bern4444 wrote:
| Thanks for sharing! This looks pretty close to what I had in
| mind.
| eixiepia wrote:
| If the team needs some data on bloated, slow software and bad
| practices, they can create an account on gitlab.com and look
| around for a few minutes.
| keriati1 wrote:
| Visualising a Codebase: This sounds very interesting, it looks
| like similar graphics as what CodeScene creates.
|
| The dependency between the modules seems like a nice addition to
| me. I don't think CodeScene has that one. Can't wait to try this
| on our bigger projects.
|
| I never found a really good way to visualize large codebases and
| the dependencies between the modules, does somebody have
| something for this?
| ilovecaching wrote:
| I really don't like the two trends Github is pushing for:
|
| 1. Code editor is full of telemetry and costs money, only
| accessible over the internet.
|
| 2. Code regressing into lots of boilerplate and automatically
| copied stack overflow answers by copilot, programmers using less
| critical thinking skills.
|
| I don't trust Microsoft either.
| haskellandchill wrote:
| Simon Peyton Jones and John Hughes, not bad.
| throwoutway wrote:
| Did GitHub ever respond to the concerns about CoPilot?
| Specifically whether they trained it on private repos or GPL?
| NoraCodes wrote:
| It was trained on all public repos, and only public repos. They
| did not pay attention to licensing.
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| Wow, that's crazy. Do we have something official that says as
| much?
| NoraCodes wrote:
| I asked, and that's what their spokesperson said via email.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's infuriating, when you are large enough you can get
| away with anything when it comes to copyright violations
| but I remember the crazy pushback on things like format and
| time shifting against private individuals.
| avg_dev wrote:
| What is format and time shifting? I am wondering if you
| mean like code formatting and reordering history, but I'm
| not really sure. Thanks.
| jrmg wrote:
| Format shifting: ripping a CD to play on your MP3 player,
| or cassette tape in the car.
|
| Time shifting: recording TV on VHS to play later.
| avg_dev wrote:
| Thanks, and oh wow. Hard to believe that was ever
| considered problematic. I guess times change.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Those things were ultimately ruled as fair use though
| which is what Microsoft is claiming here as well.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Those things _were_ fair use, what Microsoft is doing is
| copyright violation pure and simple.
| temp-dude-87844 wrote:
| This should absolutely be litigated to stop the blatant
| laundering of copyright under the guise of fair use.
|
| Copilot's API is surfacing snippets of work without
| licensing information attached alongside. It can be shown
| in discovery that Copilot does access the origin work.
|
| The sooner this is slapped down, the sooner we can avoid
| addressing the even more troubling question that exists
| today: is someone who used Copilot to throw together a
| bunch of code infringing copyright of works where those
| portions originate?
|
| This is a complex problem with no satisfying
| conclusions... how could one be violating copyright if
| they never accessed the 'copied' work to copy? Copyrights
| aren't patents. Infringement requires copying.
|
| Using Copilot launders the user's awareness of the origin
| works, yet making the Copilot users liable for widespread
| "accidental" copying would be troubling.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's not complex at all: if you use Copilot to generate
| code for you you are engaging in copyright infringement.
|
| That you got the code from and entity that stole it
| somewhere else doesn't really matter. Generative models
| should respect copyright for their sources, and using a
| generative model to create new works that you intend to
| claim copyright on is stupid: someone may well show up
| one day with ironclad proof that you used their code
| without permission.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Except every attorney that has taken a look disagrees
| with you. So it is complex and unless you have any
| standing or new data I think it's safe to dismiss your
| entire argument.
|
| https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-
| initial-th...
|
| https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-
| github-c...
|
| https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-
| infringin...
| jacquesm wrote:
| Lawyers don't judge cases, judges do.
|
| Until then all you have is opinions, mine is pretty
| straightforward: if the generative model can be made to
| work without first training it on other people's code
| then it isn't copyright infringement, if not then it is
| transforming one set of works into another.
|
| The only thing that _might_ let GitHub off the hook is
| their terms of service, but that might mean mass exodus
| from GitHub because if they interpret you using GitHub to
| host your code as a blanket permission to do with that
| code whatever they want then that 's clearly not the
| original intent of the service.
|
| If Microsoft buying GitHub claims that gave them a
| blanket license to do as they please with the
| contributions of millions of FOSS contributors then they
| are still just as bad as they were in the past.
|
| Almost every GitHub repository comes with a license file,
| even GitHub should have to abide by that license,
| otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Unless you have specialized training in copyright law,
| your opinion is unfortunately invalid when compared to
| actual experts in the field. You're making assertions
| that you clearly cannot substantiate coupled with the
| fact that we're not seeing an influx of litigants.
| Personally, I'm yet to see any news of even a single
| litigant challenging copilot. Also, the outcome of cases
| in the US are in many cases decided by a jury, not a
| judge.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I've fielded a couple of copyright lawsuits and won them,
| obviously the lawyers of the defendants thought they had
| an excellent case. I may not be a lawyer but I do know a
| thing or two about copyright law and as far as I'm
| concerned if you claim that you have created something
| because you took someone else's copyrighted content and
| pushed it through a machine of sorts that does not create
| an original work. There is _plenty_ of settled caselaw
| around this. So that much we can establish off the bat.
| Which means if you use this to create your own
| copyrighted work you may have a problem anyway. Whether
| or not it is infringing or not is largely a matter of the
| length of the segment produced and whether or not it
| matches the original in some non-trivial way. The
| mechanism in the middle doesn 't really matter.
|
| If Microsoft/GitHub want to field the argument that they
| own the rights to all of the code uploaded to GitHub then
| I'm perfectly fine with that, the only problem I see with
| that defense is that it will likely kill GitHub
| overnight.
|
| As for the jury argument: that's fine, but juries aren't
| lawyers either. I'm not sure if that should weigh as a
| positive or a negative for Microsoft.
|
| Finally, regardless of the legality: there is such a
| thing as ethics and in my book you don't appropriate a
| large body of work from a whole community without so much
| as a by-your-leave. There have been other threads on HN
| regarding this and it is interesting to see the various
| opinions, even so if Copilot is challenged legally than
| I'll be cheering on the party bringing the suit.
| tpmoney wrote:
| A reminder that copyright infringement vs fair use is in
| part dependent on the amount of the copyrighted material
| that's being used, the nature of that use and the
| transformativeness of the infringing work. Just because
| co-pilot suggests code snippets that can be found in a
| copyrighted work does not mean that the resulting
| produced product is in fact an infringement of that
| copyright.
|
| Also a reminder that outside the copilot debate, the
| online rights movement has largely been pushing for
| scraping, deep linking and transforming scrapped data to
| not be considered copyright infringement, regardless of
| any TOS on the site being scraped.
|
| To me, co pilot is a exactly that, a scraper that has
| scraped public websites and is now presenting me the
| scraped data in an alternative and often transformed
| form. It's my responsibility as a developer to ensure
| that my released product complies with applicable
| copyright law, but copilot and the use thereof is not in
| and of itself copyright infringement.
|
| That a tool can be used to create infringing work or
| infringe on copyright in general is no more a valid
| argument against co pilot than it is against CD burners,
| de-drm tools, vcrs, kodi or plex, scanners or any number
| of day to day items that have the ability to infringe
| copyright if the user uses it for that purpose.
| Nanana909 wrote:
| If Copilot reads copyrighted code to learn, and it's
| copyright violation...
|
| Does the same apply to a human? Do we now define
| copyright violation differently for computers? I don't
| know the perfect answer here. But I'm not so sure we
| should have standards that change depending on if a
| program is doing it or a human is doing it. Perhaps a bad
| standard to begin with.
|
| I do tend to learn towards thinking ,,company uses
| publicly available, open source code in product" is
| somewhat of a nothing-burger though.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Maybe, but then every large AI project is also committing
| copyright violations because as Microsoft notes this is
| currently a common practice in the AI research community.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Other parties doing is no excuse imo.
|
| Microsoft has been _super_ litigious in the past when it
| came to copyright violation starting all the way back
| with Bill Gates ' letter in Byte magazine about those
| pesky pirates. To see them do this makes pirating MS
| software fair game from here on. They could have asked
| nicely, instead they just took.
| searchableguy wrote:
| > Other parties doing is no excuse imo
|
| It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological
| capabilities and progress.
|
| As an example, if it is easy to create real voice or
| signature using AI models - they should no longer be
| considered effective evidence for contractual reason
| instead of enforcing that it is illegal to forge it. That
| is not going to work.
|
| Past shouldn't dictate what we allow tomorrow.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Sorry, but that's not how the law works. Try that excuse
| the next time you're stopped for speeding and see how
| well it works.
| searchableguy wrote:
| Your example is not good. Speeding is not a technical
| innovation that require any fundamental change. It is
| enforced in automated fashion and it is beneficial for
| the safety of public at large if reasonably implemented.
|
| All laws are made in interest of someone.
|
| Does the copyright apply to AI models since they are out
| of scope and weren't widespread when it came into force?
|
| Does the proposed benefit in the original law apply in
| practice?
|
| Are they more beneficial than the progress allowed by AI
| models who use them as training data?
|
| Is the copyright law practically enforceable on output
| generated by AI models?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Copyright law is what it is today. Like it or not doesn't
| really matter. And yes, copyright law is practically
| enforceable, regardless of how copyright is broken.
| That's what the Berne Convention is all about.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
|
| Copyright is what FOSS depends on. For Microsoft to shit
| all over GitHub contributors rights is despicable.
| voxic11 wrote:
| You can read between the lines
|
| > GitHub Copilot is trained on billions of lines of public
| code.
|
| > In one instance, GitHub Copilot suggested starting an
| empty file with something it had even seen more than a
| whopping 700,000 different times during training-that was
| the GNU General Public License.
|
| https://github.blog/2021-06-30-github-copilot-research-
| recit...
|
| This indicates that they are training it on github's public
| repositories and at the very least including 700,000 GPL
| licensed projects or code files. Since the GPL is one of
| the most "restrictive" open source licenses one can assume
| they are not caring about the licenses much.
| mysore wrote:
| copilot is just a prototype. imagine in 10-20 years, software
| engineers as we know it will be obsolete.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Yea because in the future everyone will write code and things
| like Copilot get us there. You're probably an engineer who
| likes making way more than average. So you're biased
| bodge5000 wrote:
| I remember when this was said about visual-programming. That
| didn't exactly pan out
| reaperducer wrote:
| _imagine in 10-20 years, software engineers as we know it
| will be obsolete._
|
| I've heard people saying this since the mid-70's.
|
| I lump it into the same trash bin with flying cars and
| orbiting space hotels, and "90 minutes from New York to Paris
| -- undersea by rail." Things envisioned by artists that will
| never happen in my lifetime, or yours.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Lots of other languages, tools, libraries, and frameworks
| have already made SWEs orders of magnitude more productive
| over the course of the last 40+ years. I don't think there's
| any indication of the field shrinking or slowing down as a
| result of that though.
| joshthecynic wrote:
| cush wrote:
| blackoil wrote:
| That's such a vague and novel area, that I don't think lawyers
| will recommend/allow commenting on it unless required by court
| of law.
|
| There is no precedent on if a computer reading your code or
| looking at the image is fair-use or not.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| why not train it on copyright material also? whats the prima-
| facie reason for not doing so? i mean if you are doing "all
| public repos", why not everything else?
| ziml77 wrote:
| They did train it on copyrighted work. The GPL is a license
| for copyrighted work. If it wasn't copyrighted, a license
| would be useless.
|
| The code being covered by copyright and the code being
| publicly accessible are two different things.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| you know what i mean... i am talking about training it on
| windows OS code and adobe photoshop source code and other
| "proprietary software" code
| tpmoney wrote:
| Because scraping a public website is different from
| breaking into adobes private source control servers?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| there is public DB of windows code out there, if "cant"
| is the word then let users submit the injest code and let
| it train on it. if "wont" is the word then who gave them
| the permission?
| blackoil wrote:
| Officially, Github does not have access to those repos. It
| manages them doesn't mean all team have access to them.
| FemmeAndroid wrote:
| Is this essentially a rebranding of what was GitHub OCTO (Office
| of the CTO, I believe?)
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| Yes. https://github.com/githubocto
|
| > We moved to https://github.com/githubnext!
|
| https://github.com/githubocto/flat still using old name
| idan wrote:
| Yup! When Jason departed, we couldn't be an OCTO without a CTO
| soooo rebrand! but the mission remains the same. Prototype
| things to figure out what should be!
| owlbynight wrote:
| I read the whole page and still can't tell what this is. Was
| someone up against a deadline to get this up?
| jayroh wrote:
| If anyone on the team at GitHub who built this site sees this --
|
| Heads up, that page has no `<title>` tag so the browser tab is
| `githubnext.com/`. That is a _VERY_ minor nit, but still an SEO
| ding (you're github, that doesn't matter much), and a rough edge
| that could be buffed out.
|
| Bonus points for adding a favicon too. :)
| stby wrote:
| Favicon is there, it just happens to be light grey. I guess
| someone only tested this one on a browser in dark mode.
| geoffeg wrote:
| I noticed that twitter.com also has no <title> tag, the title
| gets set once the JS loads. Kinda surprising to me that such a
| popular site like Twitter doesn't have such a basic HTML tag.
| gnull wrote:
| It's also horribly bloated. Just scrolling on my modern Android
| smartphone makes it lag and drop to like 5 FPS.
| debugnik wrote:
| > That is a _VERY_ minor nit
|
| Well, the title is precisely the only mandatory element in a
| valid HTML5 document, even if forgetting it seems harmless.
| capableweb wrote:
| Long time ago I read/skimmed the specification, but I think
| the DOCTYPE preamble is the only _required_ element in a
| HTML5 document. The specification allows you to omit <head/>
| if it's empty, and if that's allowed, then it should be
| allowed to not having any <title/> elements as well.
|
| Edit with details from https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-
| html5-20141028/document-metad...
|
| > Note: The title element is a required child in most
| situations, but when a higher-level protocol provides title
| information, e.g. in the Subject line of an e-mail when HTML
| is used as an e-mail authoring format, the title element can
| be omitted.
|
| From https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/document-
| metad...
|
| > If it's reasonable for the Document to have no title, then
| the title element is probably not required. See the head
| element's content model for a description of when the element
| is required.
|
| So strictly speaking, if it's meant to be used as a
| traditional web page, you should really have it (obviously),
| but it's not strictly required.
| debugnik wrote:
| From the head element section mentioned:
|
| > If the document is an iframe srcdoc document or if title
| information is available from a higher-level protocol: Zero
| or more elements of metadata content, of which no more than
| one is a title element [...].
|
| > Otherwise: One or more elements of metadata content, of
| which exactly one is a title element [...].
|
| So it is required, not just suggested, for a web page, but
| not for all kinds of html documents; TIL. The parser still
| tries to parse head contents before body contents even if
| you omit the head tags, so a doctype followed by title is
| the shortest valid full page.
|
| I didn't mention the doctype because I believe it isn't
| strictly speaking an element, just a preamble, but you're
| right, it's required as well.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| > _I didn 't mention the doctype because I believe it
| isn't strictly speaking an element, just a preamble, but
| you're right, it's required as well. _
|
| Funny thing, when I read "the only mandatory element in a
| valid HTML5 document", I interpreted "element" in its
| generic English sense (piece, thing) rather than its HTML
| sense (node of type element, as distinct from
| text/comment/doctype/other-types-only-found-in-XML-syntax
| nodes).
| debugnik wrote:
| True, I guess I would too if I were a native English
| speaker. Even when the words are almost identical in my
| language, I read them as programming jargon before plain
| English.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| It's not that you're allowed to omit the head element
| (you're not, and you can't), but that its start and end
| tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements.
| (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax,
| which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not
| for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only
| needing _some_ root element.)
|
| As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is
| maintained by WHATWG, not W3C. The relevant citations start
| at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#do
| cume....
|
| The normative reference on the necessity of <title> is in
| the content model for the head element:
|
| > _If the document is an `iframe srcdoc` document or if
| title information is available from a higher-level
| protocol: Zero or more elements of metadata content, of
| which no more than one is a `title` element and no more
| than one is a `base` element._
|
| > _Otherwise: One or more elements of metadata content, of
| which exactly one is a `title` element and no more than one
| is a `base` element._
|
| For the rest, you're correct: the DOCTYPE is the only
| always-mandatory thing in a valid HTML document.
| tingletech wrote:
| convo was about HTML 5 specifically (the W3C version).
| I've never heard HTML WHATWG called HTML 5.
| JimDabell wrote:
| > I've never heard HTML WHATWG called HTML 5.
|
| Directly from the specification:
|
| > 1.2 Is this HTML5?
|
| > In short: Yes.
|
| -- https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.ht
| ml#is-...?
| Aeolun wrote:
| > It's not that you're allowed to omit the head element
| (you're not, and you can't), but that its start and end
| tags are optional.
|
| That's like calling a cheese sandwich without any cheese
| a cheese sandwich.
| ectopod wrote:
| It's not a sandwich recipe. The bread doesn't matter. The
| cheese does.
| tingletech wrote:
| I think they are saying HTML implies the <head> for you -
| the <title> is still required.
| justaj wrote:
| Not only that, but it appears their DNS settings are a bit
| funky as well: $ dig githubnext.com
| ; <<>> DiG 9.11.3-1ubuntu1.17-Ubuntu <<>> githubnext.com
| ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;;
| ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 29398
| ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0,
| ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS:
| version: 0, flags:; udp: 65494 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
| ;githubnext.com. IN A
| ;; Query time: 1458 msec ;; SERVER:
| 127.0.0.53#53(127.0.0.53) ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 26 17:20:13
| CEST 2022 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 43
| idan wrote:
| Hey! Thanks for the report, we're on it :D
| mooktakim wrote:
| This is minor compared to all the new websites that use div's
| for link and button tags.
| user3939382 wrote:
| If the web implementation of git could be as
| federated/decentralized/open as git is so that GitHub didn't
| exist, that would be my ideal "GitHub-Next". Please eliminate
| yourselves.
| carapace wrote:
| Will they be innovating in ways that we get to use for free? Or
| are they creating new ways to get in-between the coder and the
| machine? E.g. Copilot is a paid subscription.
|
| By enabling increased complexity (via Language Server Protocol,
| Copilot, and even GitHub itself) devs get locked-in to the MS
| ecosystem. It reminds me of Braess's paradox ("adding one or more
| roads to a road network can slow down overall traffic flow
| through it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox ).
|
| Increasing our ability to generate (but not comprehend) complex
| systems is also _intrinsically_ dangerous (beyond the "rent
| seeking" of MS) because complexity itself is a kind of cost or
| overhead. This is not to say that the more complex system cannot
| result in efficiency gains that outweigh the cost to maintain
| that complexity. (If that were true there would be no
| multicellular life, eh?) It means complexity should be carefully
| justified in terms of economic/engineering considerations.
| hbn wrote:
| Could they use the blurb of text at the top to give me like... a
| noun to describe what this is? It just says some vagueness about
| the future and investigating and exploring.
|
| Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work?
|
| Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a
| terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
| [deleted]
| ffhhj wrote:
| It's just a rebranding of GitHub OCTO:
|
| https://github.com/githubocto
| nvrspyx wrote:
| It seems to be a research team within GitHub based on the
| blurb, projects, and team.
| [deleted]
| tuukkah wrote:
| From Twitter bio: " _GitHub Next: a team exploring the future
| of technology and software beyond the adjacent-possible._ "
| https://twitter.com/githubnext
|
| Their team consists of engineers and researchers.
| cush wrote:
| Did they add this in the last 40 mins?
|
| I'm seeing a pretty good description:
|
| " GitHub Next investigates the future of software development.
| We explore things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and
| technologies that will change our craft. New approaches to
| building healthy, productive software engineering teams. "
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| That explains what it does (somewhat vaguely), but not what
| Github Next is and who makes it up. Is it a team at GitHub
| that employees work on full time? It it some kind of
| initiative where GitHub employees spend part of their time
| working on it? Is it a community effort? Am I able to join
| in?
| FinalBriefing wrote:
| I think you're thinking too hard about it. It's just a list
| of R&D projects that might be interesting to some people.
|
| Or maybe they just updated the site in the last hour. It's
| got a list of team members and events and stuff.
| JohnFen wrote:
| It is? It reads like meaningless marketingspeak to me. It
| doesn't actually say what GitHub-Next is.
|
| I've read the whole page and I'm not sure what it is. I
| suspect it's a think tank, but I'm not certain.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| It's a sexy name by some middle manager somewhere, or some
| executive3 that got a good idea while taking a morning duce, to
| come up with an exciting new project that will juice their
| resume and hopefully get them promoted before it comes to the
| front that they do nothing and their objectives are entirely
| fluff.
|
| It's an old trick first called out in The Dilbert Principle
| that you get promoted by being associated with sexy sounding
| projects, the best case is a sexy sounding project that has
| vague objectives.
|
| Given the blurb above it sounds like there is very little
| substance to this and lots of style. Expect it to be sunset or
| fade into obscurity in 3-5 years.
|
| EDIT: For context their stated mission is > GitHub Next
| investigates the future of software development. We explore
| things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and technologies
| that will change our craft. New approaches to building healthy,
| productive software engineering teams.
|
| Notice the lack of anything that will actually be produced, key
| words that you are dealing with BS is "explore", "approaches",
| and "change our craft" without any details on what any of that
| means. If they were producing or doing something they'd say
| that. As is it's meaningless marketing drivel that could
| translate better as "We've made up a fake job to play with cool
| tech, write ill-informed meaningless blog posts about what the
| next cool thing everyone should do is. We're also light on
| technical skills so we are going to focus on teams and projects
| not actual tech"
|
| I don't begrudge them the fact they weaseled their way into
| this job good for them, but I don't expect much, and If I am
| wrong and these are actually super smart talented individuals
| that finally got the freedom to make something happen then I
| apologize for my dismissiveness. That being said when companies
| get acquired by MS they don't tend to be known for their
| innovation and ground breaking research going forward.
| idan wrote:
| Hi there! That's good feedback, and we updated the thing to
| make it clearer. Thank you!
| brockrockman wrote:
| Does githubnext.com read as a phishing-adjacent third party to
| anyone else?
|
| Why not deploy as next.github.com subdomain?
| IshKebab wrote:
| This happens all the time because setting up an entirely new
| domain yourself is way less work than asking the internal IT
| team to set up a subdomain for you. If the GitHub IT team is
| reading this then yes, that means you failed.
| tomschlick wrote:
| I'd imagine it's less about setup complexity and more about
| reducing the attack surface of the main domain where any
| number of mistakes on the subdomain could expose a
| vulnerability for the main domain as well.
| oogali wrote:
| Likely for a security-driven reason: it's primarily a marketing
| site that shouldn't have access to the .github.com cookie
| space.
| idan wrote:
| Bingo
| idan wrote:
| Used to be that way! But actually for security reasons, it was
| better for us to operate out of a separate domain. The
| github.com domain is very locked down for good reason.
|
| Also, various boring realities around SSL termination made
| deployment difficult in a github.com domain. This was the
| expedient solution. Not phishing!
| sizediterable wrote:
| How about making Github-Current actually have a good code review
| UX?
| idan wrote:
| We're thinking about review experiences! We're developers too,
| and we're keenly interested in how to make code more
| reviewable, how to help developers _make_ code more reviewable,
| and alternative interfaces to the notion of changesets.
| edgyquant wrote:
| GitHub's code review UX is the reason a lot of us use it (or
| were sold on it at least.)
| boredumb wrote:
| co-pilot used to generate react code with a GUI visualization
| tool. Boy am I excited for the amount of money people will be
| paying for ongoing maintenance for this brave new world.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-26 23:01 UTC)