1. 25
    Github responds to developers practices github.com

  2. 30

    The response shows two things:

    1) GitHub is a standard company when it comes to communication. The wording seems precise, but it doesn’t say anything actual or just admits the obvious. 2) GitHub is attackable. The interface, the model and the platform haven’t evolved much in the recent years. They literally admit that one of their core features hasn’t been in the focus for a long time.

    1. 30

      This is just a link to a circlejerking issue thread, and the commit itself is:

      Dear Open Source Maintainers,
      We hear you and we're sorry. We've been slow to respond to your letter and slow to respond to your frustrations.
      We're working hard to fix this. Over the next few weeks we'll begin releasing a number of improvements to Issues, many of which will address the specific concerns raised in the letter. But we're not going to stop there. We'll continue to focus on Issues moving forward by adding new features, responding to feedback, and iterating on the core experience. We've also got a few surprises in store.
      Issues haven't gotten much attention from GitHub these past few years and that was a mistake, but we've never stopped thinking about or caring about you and your communities. However, we know we haven't communicated that. So in addition to improving Issues, we're also going to kick off a few initiatives that will help give you more insight into what's on our radar. We want to make sharing feedback with GitHub less of a black box experience and we want to hear your ideas and concerns regularly.
      We'll be in touch next week. Sorry it's taken so long, and thank you for everything.

      It’s just saying “Oh, hey, we’ll get back to you, XOXO github.”

      This is, at best, advertising, and at worst, garbage. This doesn’t teach us anything about practices, this doesn’t show anything about how they got in this situation, this doesn’t do anything but pander to needless feelgood signal boosting.



      Reading the post from them with even a slight bit of care reveals that they haven’t promised anything of substance. This is just damage control and whitewashing, and devs are stupid enough to fall for it.

      1. 6

        Wow, I actually didn’t expect this. Still shows the downsides of monoculture/closed-source though.

        1. 10

          This doesn’t “show” anything, unfortunately. This submission doesn’t talk about the issues of using other people’s platforms, or of how to migrate on or off, or compare actions to reactions. This is a snapshot of a single side of some stupid consumer drama.

          This is sort of stuff shouldn’t be posted here. It’s just a bunch of stupid community drama–nothing to really learn from.

          1. 3

            This is sort of stuff shouldn’t be posted here. It’s just a bunch of stupid community drama–nothing to really learn from.

            I disagree with this. I think it should be posted for commentary, precisely because it needs to be debunked as standard marketing.