111–120 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesnt take long to set up iirc, the problem when I used gitlab was it was resource intensive. It somehow takes a 10$mo instance when it should be able to run as a side process on a 2.50$mo server imo. 10$mo was the same pricing as github so it didn't make sense to use.
Which place sells server for 2.50?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use (for example) 50 libraries, and want to submit bug reports and pull requests to all of them over the course of 5 years... and your attitude is "well.. if you don't make 50 accounts you don't deserve it!". Really? And also that's why we have package repositories... npm, nuget, PECL, composer, should i also register on 500 websites just so i can build a website or two? Also, github is free for open-source project…
> they do social good Maybe, but maybe I disagree with how they treat their female employees, or maybe I don't like that they financially support some political thing or whatever. Capitalism doesn't work without real competition. I shouldn't be obliged to do business with this one particular company if I want to develop Free Software. My point isn't that GitHub is evil; it's that each person should be free to decide…
This reminds me Fossil SCM. The bug tracking and wiki are part of the distributed version control system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_(software)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trac has that functionality but integrates with popular VCSes instead of rolling its own.
A further bit of trivia: Fossil and Git were developed at the same time. You could argue that Linus should have used Fossil rather than rolling his own. Fossil was built for the workflow of the sqlite developers, who do not believe Git is a good fit, and they make it available to others.
"out of the trap we now find ourselves in." The anti Microsoft panic about GitHub feels childish and pedantic. Perhaps if there was some evidence post acquisition of Microsoft trying to do unpalatable things then there might be room to complain. But just to knee jerk advocate leaving GitHub because you are a Microsoft hater lacks credibility and comes across as whining and silly.
This seems like a conflation. Your repo issues could be stored in a SQLite database, or a flat list of JSON files, or a git repo, or a giant text file, any of which your host might or might not give you direct access to. The thing to consider (if portability is your primary concern) isn't the underlying storage format, it's whether or not you have a straightforward way to move it between providers.
That's exactly what Fossil does, and the creator has urged Git to do the same.
This problem keeps returning onto HN again, and again. I think this simply wouldn't work for mentioned reason, and few others that come to my mind.
And i know a bit about building a source code management platform because I built RhodeCode.
Don't forget GitHub, Microsoft and et al, co-wrote and contribute to libgit2[1], a portable pure-C Git core implementation that's aim for cross platform compatibility. As the author noted himself, GitHub keeps, source code, user pages/wikis and gists in Git. Other objects like issues, repo relationships, accounts, project details in their own database[2]. To me, that's a fairly standard way of storing data if I were…
So is the main complaint that GitHub is a closed-source, proprietary product? Or is it that they don't provide you with an "export all of my code, issues, wiki, conversations, social graph, etc to GitLab" button?
The opening paragraph is also very on point about the negative effects of Github on the Git ecosystem.
I'm perfectly happy with Github. They have a very clear value proposition which they offer at a price point which is only a tiny percentage of the value they create. Great company that has empowered accelerated software innovation across the world. Not sure what's up with this whole company X makes money so must be evil vibe. Most of the people complaining about this have well paid jobs so there's a bit of hypocrisy…
Nobody cares that they make money. They care about it not being open source or having easy-to-migrate data (lock-in).
If anyone has a good idea for a format/protocol to store issues & pull requests in Git itself, I'm all ears. There is a reason why every single product uses a separate database for those.