dear-github VS linux

GitHub makes this unnecessarily worse by refusing to let you disable Pull Requests like one can disable the other social features (Wiki etc) of a repository: https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/84

The workaround is to use GH Actions to auto-close PRs: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/repo-lockdown

There is no way to disable pull requests on GitHub. Only some weird work-arounds for auto-closing them with Actions

> don't let people waste their time creating issues in the first place

But then you don't get to use issues to track things that you personally care about. It would be nice if there were a way to enable issue creation by the repo owner / maintainers, but disallow it for the public at large. Especially now that "discussions" are a thing, which gives a place for people to comment without implicitly requesting work from the maintainer.

Apparently this is sort of possible[1] by setting `blank_issues_enabled: false`, so that you can only create issues from the Project page.

[1]: https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/293#issuec...

last I've seen the Oauth permissions for the Heroku Dashboard given by Github are excessive and include write access to all public repos - as read-only is not an option if I recall correctly, see https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/113#issuec...

Newer integrations like Github Apps are more granular and can restrict the scope , also ssh deploy keys are an option for other purposes, but specifically the tokens issued for the Heroku Dashboard can write to the public repos of a user or org.

Without active triage and maintenance, such a list would quickly become useless. Let's look at just one example that's not even for an open source project: https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/214

Found these ways to submit bug to github: https://support.github.com/contact/feedback https://support.github.com/request https://github.com/isaacs/github#if-you-have-an-issue-or-feature-request-for-github https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github [email protected] Submitting tickets using an enterprise account

You're right, likely the OP thought PRs were included in settings where you can disable issues or wikis

Discussion: https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/84

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...