draw.io VS github

At first I thought this was drawio: https://www.drawio.com/ with which you can generate a schema diagram from SQL. Is this the other way around.

For anyone who is willing to use a webapp, I like drawio[0]. You can download locally[1] and self host (I just use the python webserver).

While finding the Github, I see they now actually package an Electron application, so that is probably worth exploring[2].

[0] https://www.drawio.com/

[1] https://github.com/jgraph/drawio

[2] https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop

draw.io works nicely for flowcharts and other types of diagrams.

:

  The source code authored by us in this repo is

Another way that you can leverage the power of ChatGPT and mermaid is when you are using a software designing tool such as Draw.io and you want to skip the tedious task of creating a diagram from scratch and want to get a push at the begging and save your time for the creative part of the diagram.

There are also mockups with more features, so ignore weird UI at first.

[1]: https://www.drawio.com

> Additional minified JavaScript files and Java libraries are used in this project. All of the licenses are deemed compatible with the Apache 2.0, nothing is GPL or AGPL, due dilgence is performed on all third-party code.

Here's an issue that was opened:

https://github.com/jgraph/drawio/issues/3782

> The file for converting the mermaid code to mxgaph xml is available only in minified version. the unminified version "mermaid2drawio.js" is missing. Please include that.

Answer:

> We do not supply the source to that file.

With such phrasing, for now, I'll consider drawio proprietary with some parts in Apache 2 (even if it's actually the majority of the code).

It might be possible to have a fork with some optional features related to these non provided files removed, if by luck no critical feature is impacted.

Specifically I've been working on an incremental game and I've been using https://www.drawio.com/ to help me plan out what I want the progression of features/unlocks to be as the player progresses through the game, what pre-requirements/events are for each feature/unlock, etc.

> you will never know if draw.io will be around in a few years' time.

https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#readme (Apache 2, at least for now)

While looking for solutions, I realized that many developers face similar challenges. This issue is widely discussed, particularly in a GitHub thread: Track traffic to GitHub repo longer than 14 days #399.

Probably the older email address is still the primary one for the GitHub account.

GitHub took it upon themselves to change email addresses and author names when merging via the UI buttons like "Squash and Merge" in 2018 and then again in 2019. See <https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1368> for the tedious details.

Essentially the post-2019 behaviour seems to be that where possible with "Squash and Merge" they will set noreply@github as the committer so that they can sign the merged commit themselves, and set author name & email to what they have recorded for the GH account involved (and the signature is then a record that GH have verified that account's involvement).

Personally I think it is shocking that they ignore the name and email address that the actual author of the commit has selected. This is both a violation of the author's intentions -- for example, you may set work and personal email addresses in different repositories as discussed here, but GitHub will rewrite them all to the same thing when other people press "Squash and Merge" on your pull requests -- and potentially a doxxing security risk.

I have considered re-reporting this to GitHub via the newer community discussions or via support again, but given the extent to which they've ignored all such reports over the last five years it is hard to find the motivation to do so.

However, there is a massive issue. Github by default truncates insights to t-14 days (where t = today). This is super annoying as there is a discontinuity in data. There is also an archived issue on Github regarding this. The issue has a whopping 119 comments and has been around for over 8 years now. Basically, from the discussions there - Data you don't persist today will be gone 14 days from now. And looks like Github hasn't done anything about it.

> Hi, people have made money using my code and I also don’t care

looks like everyone's missing the point.

> I understand this is upsetting to you

Again, maybe I am on another level of comprehension, so I don't understanda why it is so hard for someone to get it, but I am not upset by that, at all.

I simply know that those who think "it will be fine" are delusional and don't know what they are talking about!

So I just will paste some link to relevant news here, maybe it will make things clearer.

It includes the opinion of Antirez, father of one of the most successful OSS ever: Redis. Maybe his words will open your eyes and tear the veil of Maya.

(spoiler ahead alert!)

Basically you work for free and people don't even thank you and the maintainer ends up being doxed or blamed or pushed aside and in the long term the only solution to keep sanity is to resign

https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/burden-open-source-ma...

https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/13/opensource_apacheplc4...

https://nolanlawson.com/2017/03/05/what-it-feels-like-to-be-...

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/z14tt2/reason_why_op...

https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/167

http://web.archive.org/web/20221217180915/http://antirez.com...

I don't know what the fuss is all about. It was publicly known that Github was breaking automatic git archives consistency for many years. Here is a bug on a project to stop relying on fake github archives (as opposed to stable git-archive(1)):

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099

At some point it was impossible to go a few weeks (or even days) without a github archive change (depending on which part of the "CDN" you hit), I guess they must have stabilized it at some point. Here is an old issue before GitHub had a community issue tracker:

https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1483

Hello, I see you stepped on my favourite personal soapbox! :)

https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1017

I really, really like semi-linear branching/merging. I.e. always rebase-merging, but with a merge commit.

Reasons, in comparison to Github's "rebase merge" which doesn't produce a merge commit:

1. It makes it clear which commits were part of one PR

2. It makes it clear who did the merge

3. It's okay to not have every commit build. but the one being merged will.

4. Still pretty bisectable. You'll narrow things down at least to the PR that caused an issue, and from there it's usually quite simple.

5. Looks very tidy in gitk & Co

Not to say that the feature isn't coming to FOSS git services.. Just that even proprietary organizations have had issues with taking a while to implement them.

Oh this is cool actually! Nice! One of the grievances I have with github commit signing is this issue https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1099

In addition, you probably want to read this discussion. https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1138