vscode-docs

Public documentation for Visual Studio Code

Developer Tools Learning & Reference

Explore on GitHub Read Hacker News discussions

11Distinct people

13Mentions

0Explicit recommenders

6.7KGitHub stars

REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Public documentation for Visual Studio Code

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 6:01:08 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year13 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-03-21 22:11:17 UTC to 2024-07-03 12:24:30 UTC.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges

UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
Period	Start (UTC)	End (exclusive, UTC)	Mentions	Submissions	Comments
2016	2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	5	5	0
2017	2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2	0	2
2018	2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
2019	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
2020	2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	0	1
2021	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
2022	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2	0	2
2023	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
2024	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	3	0	3

What Hacker News says

2 sources

hollerith·Mar 2, 2017

Although vscode is a very impressive project, I get the impression it would prove frustrating for my use case: particularly, I am in the habit of using and hacking on my editor when I do not have net connectivity, and what this update and the last 2 updates have done is display a prominent banner in a contrasting background color saying "Error: the internet connection appears to be offline" that won't go away until I manually dismiss it. Then the banner reappears a few minutes later according to some criteria I have been unable to guess, and there is no "don't show again" button like there is on some other banners vscode shows me. Also I discovered no way to obtain a usable local copy vscode's documentation without acquiring deep knowledge of the system. (The deep knowledge becomes necessary after I clone the repo at github.com/Microsoft/

Read the rest

vscode-docs.) In summary, I'm going to encounter many frustrations if I make a deep dive into vscode the way it exists today, and I should wait till someone adapts it for offline use; is that not true?

In Visual Studio Code 1.10

carussell·Feb 13, 2017

> GitHub identifies people via their SSH key, not via a "name" or email address. Contrary to this, GitHub leans heavily on email addresses to identify contributors—in fact it may be correct to say it relies entirely on email addresses. This comes from both the documentation[1] and is borne out by experiments I've done to verify this[2]. The only thing I'm aware of that's of note is if you superficially try to change the author of the patch to give a different attribution before pushing to GitHub, then GitHub will say something like "Other-Name committed with Real-You". In this case, it all comes from Git—Git has a notion of "committer" as distinct from "author". So what's happening in the case of e.g. `--author=Other-Name <fake@example>`, Git reads your config, which specifies e.g. Real-You, and so based on that and the `author` flag,

Read the rest

will mark the commit with author Other-Name and committer Real-You. From this, GitHub displays the UI string of the form mentioned earlier. For example, from a recent commit[3] to the vscode-docs repo, if you do: $ git cat-file -p caa4bc3e50a96a93a1d4f5e39597cc3fc1cb9a4f ... then you get: tree 86c221e0f9e7e986068c50971ac322c738f5812f parent ccb9478342bba878111baedb412fb7f6911b40ad author João Moreno <mail@joaomoreno.com> 1486451758 +0100 committer Greg Van Liew <gregvanl@microsoft.com> 1486481582 -0800 Improve `code` docs for macOS Once again, this is all Git, and nothing specific to GitHub or any special inference that it derives from SSH keys (to my knowledge). If you have some other information, can you share it? Realistically, it's not feasible for GitHub to rely on SSH because it's not even necessary to set up SSH for your account. (Pushes from the command line can be done with a username/password pair—if you're hitting the https endpoint—and GitHub really likes people who do everything through their web UI. Forcing the latter group to mess with SSH is basically a non-starter, given GitHub's goals—which I'll clarify at every opportunity, is to be a social network first, and a software development platform second.) 1. https://help.github.com/articles/why-are-my-commits-linked-t... 2. http://www.colbyrussell.com/2016/02/13/keeping-a-low-profile... 3. https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-docs/commit/caa4bc3e50a9...

In From AST to Lossless Syntax Tree