Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#61

Post by gkbrk »

remram wrote: post #60
gkbrk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You email the author, the author can merge your patch or pull from your repo/branch. Merging your patch even comes built-in with Git. The place hosting your Git repo doesn't need anything special to support this. You email the author, they merge your patch and then git push.

By this definition, everything is federated, because you can email the author and ask them to post something for you.

Except with git this is all built into the git client out of the box. Git has built-in tooling for sending patches over email and applying emailed patches. It's not something bolted on top, people have collaborated on git repos this way for ages.

Some other federation method through centralized platforms like Github would have to be bolted on to git, email is just the built-in and very much intended method that already exists.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#62

Post by remram »

gkbrk wrote: post #61
remram wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this definition, everything is federated, because you can email the author and ask them to post something for you.

Except with git this is all built into the git client out of the box. Git has built-in tooling for sending patches over email and applying emailed patches. It's not something bolted on top, people have collaborated on git repos this way for ages. Some other federation method through centralized platforms like Github would have to be bolted on to git, email is just the built-in and very much intended method that alrea…

What you're now saying is that "Git has federation features for patches" which doesn't relate at all to your earlier claim "Merge requests are already federated on any platform using Git".

A "merge request" or "pull request" is a specificb thing on those platforms (GitHub/GitLab/Gitea/...) and are definitely not federated.

In the same way, Twitter is not federated just because it runs on phones where you could send your message via SMS instead. That makes no sense. Even if SMS is built into your mobile text editor.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#63

Post by jjmarr »

remram wrote: post #62
gkbrk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except with git this is all built into the git client out of the box. Git has built-in tooling for sending patches over email and applying emailed patches. It's not something bolted on top, people have collaborated on git repos this way for ages. Some other federation method through centralized platforms like Github would have to be bolted on to git, email is just the built-in and very much intended method that alrea…

What you're now saying is that "Git has federation features for patches" which doesn't relate at all to your earlier claim "Merge requests are already federated on any platform using Git". A "merge request" or "pull request" is a specificb thing on those platforms (GitHub/GitLab/Gitea/...) and are definitely not federated. In the same way, Twitter is not federated just because it runs on phones where you could send y…

A merge request is a series of bundled commits layered in a web database somewhere to break compatibility with vanilla Git workflows. That's why Gerrit is better if federation/portability is valuable. 1 commit = 1 code review.

You can push a commit to Gerrit for the webui, you can email it to someone for manual code review and merging, you can (maybe) do it in Phabricator, so on and so forth.

This is inherently federated in a way that GitHub's pull request system does not. A commit in GitHub requires context in the form of a "pull request" provided by their proprietary interface and so the raw git commit doesn't have everything you need to perform the review.

Apologies for not communicating this better in my original comment.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#64

Post by shiomiru »

atmosx wrote: post #58
sshine wrote: post #9

I've used GitHub for years knowing that Microsoft owning it, they're headed for a place I won't like. I just haven't experienced that until now. I've been trying out sr.ht and codeberg.org. Sadly the product is nowhere near GitHub.

My understanding is that sr.ht doesn't allow a user without an account to collaborate with a user that has one. So effectively _all_ developers must pay for the privilege to "work" on a project.

> My understanding is that sr.ht doesn't allow a user without an account to collaborate with a user that has one. So effectively _all_ developers must pay for the privilege to "work" on a project.

That is a misunderstanding: sr.ht only costs money if you host your projects there.

Since the official supported workflow is email-based, you don't even need a sr.ht account (paid or otherwise) to submit patches.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#65

Post by dhimmel »

Many of my organizations were flagged on 2024-02-12 and hidden. Saga via a tweet thread at https://twitter.com/dhimmel/status/1757034659895021838>.

Apparently the cause was that I interacted with code that GH detected as malicious. The weird thing was that GH left this supposedly malicious code as publicly visible in multiple personal repos while hiding my unrelated organizations. These organizations were home to highly used scholarly software, research projects, and datasets. I started getting emails from users like:

> I was looking at a manubot issue and found out that the repo vanished from the internet. What happened?

I got the situation resolved through my contact at GitHub, but still no response via the GH support ticket after 2 weeks. Seems like GitHub is shooting themselves in the foot. Strange.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#66

Post by quickslowdown »

Nullabillity wrote: post #33
k8svet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily Forgejo has a blog with a days-old blog post that spells this out. The winds are clearly blowing in Forgejo's direction despite some doubt from me, early on.

The "we're becoming a hard fork"[0] blog post says that they are hard-forking and what the consequences of that will be, but says nothing about why . [0]: https://forgejo.org/2024-02-forking-forward/

The "why" was explained by another commentor. They became hostile to their community, pulling a bunch of features out of reach and moving previously free features behind paywalls. They're moving to target more enterprise customers, and as a personal user, I don't want to be limited in this way, so I've switched to the community fork (Forgejo)
Post reply on HN