141–150 of 481 posts
Inevitable. GitHub is a good platform in need of some proper dev workflows (pull requests are atrocious, branches footguns, yml driven CI is a noose) but they've obviously won.
mozilla-central has a LOT of tests -- each push burns a lot of compute hours.
What is the source of “Firefox Moves to GitHub”? It could be a mirror, just like Linux also has an mirror on GitHub. https://github.com/torvalds/linux // EDIT: Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43970574
https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox/blob/main/.github...
Would have been great if they used an European alternative ( like Codeberg ).
Mozilla is US organization, why would they care to?
I was thinking something different: I wonder whether Mozilla considered GitLab or Codeberg, which are the other two I know that are popular with open source projects that don't trust GitHub since it sold out to Microsoft.
(FWIW, Microsoft has been relatively gentle or subtle with GitHub, for whatever reason. Though presumably MS will backstab eventually. And you can debate whether that's already started, such as with pushing "AI" that launders open source software copyrights, and offering to indemnify users for violations. But I'd guess that a project would be pragmatically fine at least near term going with GitHub, though they're not setting a great example.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If GitHub went down, how much would it impact the open source world? Sure, there would be local copies everywhere, but for a distribution version control system, it's pretty centralized at GitHub
If GitHub went down, the code would be fine (just announce a new official URL), but the main thing that would be lost is issues and pull requests. Maybe Git should add official support for issues and pull requests in its metadata to be fully decentralized.
Everything else... as the original comment said, is pretty centralized for a decentralized system.
Their docs was also a mess back then and made me recompile everything even if it wasnt needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Codeberg, how does one even search for files containing a given string? Probably the #1 thing I do on GitHub is searching for files in a project containing a given string.
Given how terrible GitHub search in files is, what I usually do is clone the repo and run ripgrep.
Pretty cool that Linus Torvalds invented a completely distributed version control system and 20 years later we all use it to store our code in a single place.
I find this comment really interesting, because NONE of my clients in the last 10 years of (self-) employment had even a single codebase on GitHub. I am contributing to a few open source projects on GitHub here and there though.
Git is by far the most widely used VCS. The majority of code hosting services use it.
Pretty cool that Linus Torvalds invented a completely distributed version control system and 20 years later we all use it to store our code in a single place.
I get what you're saying, but tbf hosting on github doesn't (yet!) box you out of just moving back to that system. It's still just git. It's still distributed, in the sense that if github goes down you could still generate patches and email them around, and then push back to github when it's back. Everything surrounding code: issues, CICD, etc, is obviously another story. But it's not a story that is answered by dist…
> Everything surrounding code: issues, CICD, etc, is obviously another story. But it's not a story that is answered by distributed git either. (though I would love a good issue tracking system that is done entirely inside git)
There is https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug - would love if people started o use it, even in a read only way: use github issues normally, but also have a bot that saves all coments to git-bug, so that i can read issues without an internet connection. Then, at a later date, make it so that people that make issues on git-bug also gets the issue posted on github, making a two way bridge.
Then, optionally, at a later stage when almost everyone migrated to git-bug, make the github issues a read only mirror of the git-bug issues. Probably not worth it: you lose drive-by comments from newcomers (that already have a github account but probably never heard of git-bug), raising the friction to report bugs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you're saying, but tbf hosting on github doesn't (yet!) box you out of just moving back to that system. It's still just git. It's still distributed, in the sense that if github goes down you could still generate patches and email them around, and then push back to github when it's back. Everything surrounding code: issues, CICD, etc, is obviously another story. But it's not a story that is answered by dist…
Like fossil?
However, were you to say liken-able (slang keywords: comparative something else--) of, "fossil with git-github", then again: no.
Good call were the conversation (comments, almost interchangeable at-times haha!) being, everyone use git for Firefox, something kinda wild-topic!
On one hand, centralization at a commercial provider isn't great. On the other hand, the plethora of different self-hosted platforms with limited feature sets is a huge pain. Just finding the repo is often a frustrating exercise, and then trying to view, or worse, search the code without checking it out is often even more frustrating or straight out impossible.
I wish I could search on GitHub without logging in
But it’s a lot of work to prevent abuse, especially for resource intensive features when supporting unsigned-in use cases.