Interesting, seems useful. I don't use GitHub enough to necessitate needing an entire TweetDesk like solution, but I can see the practicality for those that maintain repositories.
The license however, for anyone looking into hosting this themselves, is not open source, but only source available. Here is the complete license (without the emojis, looks like they don't parse on HN):
This is project provided as is without any warranties.<br/>
By using this app you agree with its [privacy](PRIVACY.md) policy and the license below:
- You are encouraged to use, share and submit pull requests with improvements;
- You are allowed to use the official hosted version ([devhubapp.com](https://devhubapp.com/)) on your company or commercial projects;
- You are allowed to use the source code for personal non-commercial purposes only, like studing or contributing;
- You are not allowed to distribute this app anywhere, neither changed versions of this app, including but not limited to Apple Store, Google Play or Web; Changes to the source code can only be used locally, taking in consideration the other points of this License;
- You are not allowed to charge people for this app, neither bypass its paid features, if any;
It's clearly open source. What you mean to say is that it's not Free Software. Don't get me wrong I'm an ally of open source, but the very notion that open source or free software are somehow protected words is funny by itself.
Someone created a decent app, posted the source for it and allows you to play around with it. Be grateful, or ignore it, or bash it for technical reasons, but this "I don't actually care about the software I just came to say it's not really open source", because that one mention in the readme is odd to me.
I'm kind of assuming it might turn open core at some point in the future, but for now it's not.
Edit: I'm fully aware that the comment is controversial and not happily received by the HN community, but contrary to popular belief the open source initiative has no copyright claim to the words open source, merely to the open source initiative phrase. No downvotes will change that.
But even if you use the phrases by opensource.com:
The term "open source" refers to something people can
modify - fork
and share - pull request
because its design is publicly accessible.
I fully get why someone would dislike the strict way he defined his license terms, but it's still in accordance with modify and share.
"If you move beyond modifying the code and decide to distribute your modified version (or the original), that is the point at which there may be compliance issues with the open source license. You only need to check you are passing on the same rights to others as you received with the original code. "
You can distribute it just fine using the pull-requests. Again, it's fine to be against this, but "you're not allowing me to distribute it the way i want therefore it can't be open source" is a moot point.
I'm not argueing for his license, but I'm against the senseless bashing of licenses I disagree with.
I think you're confusing this with the difference between having to make additions available as open source as well (like with the GPL) versus being able to keep additions closed source (like MIT or BSD).
In this case, however, you're not allowed to distribute additions at all, unless you contribute them back to the original project. In other words, forking's not allowed.
It's not about copyright or the OSI's lack thereof. It's about abusing language to bring along a mindshare that isn't rightfully yours. The OSI definition of open source is the broadly accepted definition of open source. Using it to describe something which isn't is lying, in the same way that serving someone bacon and eggs when you put "cake" on your menu is lying. Neither the terms "bacon and eggs" nor "cake" has to be copyrighted for this to be true.
Not that I'm acusing the author of DevHub of lying, I'm just clarifying the problem.
Is there a writeup on how you architected the project to share 99% of code? I'd be really interested in reading that! From a skim it looks like React + React Native.
After like.. a couple of minutes I think I got it now. Tweetdeck is another popular app and this is kind of like it, but for Github instead of Twitter?
Really confusing title for someone who have no clue about what tweetdeck was, which I assume most of us don't. Still doesn't understand what it actually does for me since I have no clue what tweetdeck does?
Yeah, this all needs a human friendly title and tagline. The "Why" section is the first thing I should see on the GitHub page, instead of the buzzword soup I see.
What sorts of things would you be interested in? I’ve been building a product that can improve product quality by analyzing the relationship and history between source code and tickets. We use gitlab and have always treated gitlab as a first class citizen.
I want a tool that allows visibility across projects, because this "keeping track of status by email" is for the birds.
The "Issues", "Merge Requests", and "Todos" across the tab bar isn't helpful in the same way that I would _imagine_ a TweetDeck-ish layout by project or by item type would be
I really like the interface, then again I am used to Tweetdeck. I wish when clicking on something it wouldn't immediately link me to a new tab in github, instead a nicely wrapped view of the issue or comment staying within the apo would be more beneficial to me. Anywho, great start! Also I been using octobox.io for notifications and it's a very elegant solution to GitHub's current mess
Most languages will handle file opening transparently, regardless of OS. Is that code sharing? What about the extra bit of logic you have to tack on because file system Y doesn't handle Z?
It also occurs to me that I would rather have 98% code sharing, nicely encapsulated in 1 file, rather than 99% spread over 101 files (not an accusation aimed at this code base).
This is pretty cool. I could definitely see myself liking this interface as I already like tweetdeck. I'm not quite sure it's worth all the access I need to grant for my account though.
Access to all the production code I‘ve written in recent years? How about no? I hope nobody in my connected organizations signs up with that permission. Those are potentially millions of Euros of value (not only my own code!), exposed to someone I don’t have a contract with.
I signed up with public permissions, that should be fine. But please just remove the private part. It’s plain irresponsible even if there is no malicious intent. What if someone stole all the tokens from their DB?
The license however, for anyone looking into hosting this themselves, is not open source, but only source available. Here is the complete license (without the emojis, looks like they don't parse on HN):
# License
Copyright (c) 2018 [Bruno Lemos](https://twitter.com/brunolemos).
This is project provided as is without any warranties.<br/> By using this app you agree with its [privacy](PRIVACY.md) policy and the license below:
- You are encouraged to use, share and submit pull requests with improvements;
- You are allowed to use the official hosted version ([devhubapp.com](https://devhubapp.com/)) on your company or commercial projects;
- You are allowed to use the source code for personal non-commercial purposes only, like studing or contributing;
- You are not allowed to distribute this app anywhere, neither changed versions of this app, including but not limited to Apple Store, Google Play or Web; Changes to the source code can only be used locally, taking in consideration the other points of this License;
- You are not allowed to charge people for this app, neither bypass its paid features, if any;