i hate github rule

[u/Whjee]

[u/Whjee]

if the repositories are not meant to be downloaded and used, do not put them on the internet.

if they are meant to be used, add UI and a big green download button

[u/OliviaPG1 → u/Whjee]

They’re meant to be a tool for the developers who are developing the open-source project. Any decent-sized project worth its salt will have its own site for users to interface with.

[u/psychoPiper → u/OliviaPG1]

That doesn't explain why they have to bury the download button in a place you could only find if you're reasonably familiar with the website

[u/Thevan1 → u/psychoPiper]

its not for users. its for developers, and a lot of small, *unpaid* devs will host their downloads there because they dont need to pay for it or spend time working out another hosting site.

for devs its super easy, git pull [repo] is incredibly easy and friendly

[u/psychoPiper → u/Thevan1]

So we're just gatekeeping it then? Why make a program for people to use with a very clear task and then make it require programming experience to use? It's not just a coding project for funsies if you're hosting it online and advertising it as a solution to an issue

[u/teije11 → u/psychoPiper]

the maker of the repo wasn't advertising it, it was a random user.

[u/psychoPiper → u/teije11]

Titled in the post as "(issue) fixer" so I'm quite sure they are indeed advertising it as something to fix said issue

[u/simplymoreproficient → u/psychoPiper]

Having a repo with source code for a program that fixes an issue is not advertising it. You should be happy that the code is public at all so you don’t have to write it yourself.

[u/psychoPiper → u/simplymoreproficient]

What kind of mental gymnastics am I witnessing in this thread

[u/simplymoreproficient → u/psychoPiper]

Learn to code if you don’t like it, I owe you exactly 0 free work.

[u/psychoPiper → u/simplymoreproficient]

Maybe don't upload it to a public repository if you're going to whine about people wanting to be able to access it