Our great sponsors
-
Git
Git Source Code Mirror - This is a publish-only repository but pull requests can be turned into patches to the mailing list via GitGitGadget (https://gitgitgadget.github.io/). Please follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches procedure for any of your improvements.
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
According to their github profile, 3 of the top 10 contributors to git list github as their employer. https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors
>I think my previous comment ([...]) highlights why it's problematic to link to release notes from an organization that is not the same organization that actually does the work/releases.
You're characterization of it being "problematic to link to Github" vs Git's official mailing is overlooking the cause & effect of how stories end up on the front page. If most readers would prefer more "official" links from domain *.kernel.org, people can submit them, as they have done so in the past. Examples:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Of course, after submission, people also need to upvote them. It's wrong (and misleading) to later change a submission linking to Github blog to the kernel.org url. The upvoters may have found the context and explanations from Github's post to be more helpful than the kernel.org post. (And as stated before, the Github post has the extra bonus of leading readers to the kernel.org release notes. But the opposite is not true, the kernel.org post does not lead to Github.)
In your opinion, where is the root cause of the "problem" as you call it? The submitters? The upvoters? The HN mods that leave the original thread url unchanged?
>In this case, GitHub didn't mention anything about `send-email`, because it's a direct competitor to themselves.
Hang on... let's level set here with some realism and not exaggerate. The "git send-email" is not a "direct" competitor to Github. Maybe GitLab could be described as a direct competitor.
Here's a previous thread where somebody doesn't want to mess with send-email because it's a hassle with a bunch of replies lecturing him that he's doing it wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13631069
It doesn't matter if that posters' complaints about send-email are wrong. The point is that send-email caters to a different type of git user and it's not a direct threat to Github at all.
Also, if Github was truly worried about users defecting to "git send-email", why would they deliberately link to the official Git notes that highlights git send-email as the 1st bulllet point ?!?
If we entertained your theory that "git send-email" kills Github's business model, wouldn't they omit the link to keep readers in the dark?