1. 7
  1. 3

    Awesome to see this public. I’ve been using the internal preview for a few weeks. Code search has been aweful in GitHub to the extent that it’s often better to just clone the repo and navigate it in a local editor (or even with grep). With this, it’s actually useful. The fact that it makes all of the tokens into links to do further searches means that it’s now a fast way of navigating a large codebase (I’ve been using it on the FreeBSD tree quite a bit). This means that it can be useful without needing to actually parse the source (which is very hard for C/C++ and similar languages).

    It still inherits a few limitations (for example, it indexes only the default branch), but it’s really great to see.

    1. 2

      (Disclaimer: I work on this.)

      It still inherits a few limitations (for example, it indexes only the default branch), but it’s really great to see.

      Stay tuned on that. And please post your feedback here, where we’re discussing the search syntax for searching non-default branches.

      1. 1

        Fyi we may want to search on multiple git refs as well. I.e some workflow would use release branch/tag of a certain patterns.

        Sadly I have yet to get the beta access to write up feedbacks.

        1. 1

          I’ve probably posted enough feedback in Teams already! I was using the feature quite a few times every day in private preview (and very happy with it) but I’m now off for Christmas until the new year.

      2. 1

        I hope this means when I search for some code I literally just had open on GitHub’s web interface, GitHub’s search doesn’t say it doesn’t exist.

        1. 1

          This is a topic that is very dear and close to me. Its a bit of a shame that they decided NOT to opensource the indexing engine so that I can study it further.

          1. 1

            FTC really should be doing an anti-trust bust up of GitHub. Since MS bought them they killed the CI space and now they want to kill SourceGraph. It’s not healthy for the market. Either they should be indie or they should expand into new spaces. Having one of the largest market cap corporations in the world own them and them expand into new markets is just a consumer disaster.

            1. 3

              Since MS bought them they killed the CI space and now they want to kill SourceGraph. It’s not healthy for the market

              Really? There seem to still be quite a lot of CI providers that integrate with GitHub. GitHub Actions is still roughly feature comparable to Azure Pipelines, which has had the same free tiers as GitHub Actions since before the GitHub acquisition. Third-party CI systems are hooked into the same interfaces and appear in the same UI as GitHub Actions and some, such as Circle CI provide features such as FreeBSD support that GitHub Actions don’t. GitHub even provides a marketplace that advertises the third-party ones that integrate with GitHub.

              As to SourceGraph, if your business model depends on fixing serious limitations in another company’s product then you need to be aware that eventually the vendor of the other product will fix the bugs. GitHub’s search has always been abysmal. With or without the acquisition, it was going to be replaced by something decent eventually. Cross-referencing code is one of the core requirements for a decent code hosting platform and it’s been a bit embarrassing for GitHub that their implementation was so bad. Now that it’s good, fewer people will need the work arounds.