GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#2> Case in point: if a very popular Github repository (such as the one for the Linux kernel) decided to start using LFS for some of their files, they would instantly alienate all of their users. They would no longer be able to properly fork the project, or even clone it to get its binary files stored via LFS. Nobody would be able to send a pull request to Linus as a result without considerable effort.
Odd example. Linux doesn't use GitHub pull requests.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#3> Case in point: if a very popular Github repository (such as the one for the Linux kernel) decided to start using LFS for some of their files, they would instantly alienate all of their users. They would no longer be able to properly fork the project, or even clone it to get its binary files stored via LFS. Nobody would be able to send a pull request to Linus as a result without considerable effort. Odd example. Lin…
Yeah I am assuming OP doesn't realize that patches are sent to the Linux kernel through emails.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#4The most interesting takeaway for me was that Microsoft seems to privide the only(?) free git hosting that includes LFS?
Does anyone know if their repos supports forking in combination with LFS too?
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#5The post seems hyperbolic. I'd love to hear GitHub's rebuttal.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#6> Case in point: if a very popular Github repository (such as the one for the Linux kernel) decided to start using LFS for some of their files, they would instantly alienate all of their users. They would no longer be able to properly fork the project, or even clone it to get its binary files stored via LFS. Nobody would be able to send a pull request to Linus as a result without considerable effort. Odd example. Lin…
They still use pull requests, though, just in the form of email-based ones.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#7There's a lot of assumptions here about GitHub being greedy. I've got no idea how much money it costs GitHub to support Open Source projects, but it must easily be in the millions. I think that by this point GitHub deserves the benefit of the doubt before launching into vicious accusations.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#8Shock and horror: commercial company has a paid value add.
GitHub is not a charity.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#9> I honestly couldn’t believe that GitHub would be willing to do something that shortsighted, visibly motivated by greed from the cash they thought they could extract from some of their users.
They're a business. C'mon here.
Re: GitHub’s Large File Storage is no panacea for Open Source
#10There's a lot of assumptions here about GitHub being greedy. I've got no idea how much money it costs GitHub to support Open Source projects, but it must easily be in the millions. I think that by this point GitHub deserves the benefit of the doubt before launching into vicious accusations.
There's still the issue where turning on LFS makes forks unusable - regardless of price/profit this still seems like a major issue. Based off all the author's descriptions it sounds more like GitHub are still in the process of figuring out how best to get LFS management in their largely-collaborative environment. I wouldn't be surprised if GitHub has upcoming changes to resolve some of these issues.