Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A few issues here. Filtering feature requests to "whatever makes money" seems to be overly reductionist and a bit cynical, especially given a company like GitHub which is relatively open and has a flexible policy as to what is being worked on. Sibling commenters bring up examples like Atom and Electron that GitHub pours salary money into but don't make money off of.

Also, it assumes that the requests don't matter for paying users – on the contrary, the features listed in the original article could be useful features that could make more projects, including paid projects, use GitHub Issues, which could in turn make more people pay for GitHub. I know that the first request, metadata for issues, would have been incredibly useful for when my team was using GitHub Issues.

Finally, the lack of features that open-source authors consider important is a pretty big deal. This article asks, where are the projects going to go if GitHub doesn't implement these features? Well, it's far from inconceivable that they'd switch to another place that had better features and supported open-source projects more fully, taking away steam from what originally pushed GitHub to be so popular and become the juggernaut in public and private source code hosting – open-source projects.

Remember Google Code and SourceForge?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: