• robinm@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Moving to git is nice but I don’t understand why they don’t self-host a gitlab instance.

    • lysdexic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      but I don’t understand why they don’t self-host

      Why would anyone self-host a FLOSS project? Trade secrets is not a concern, nor is it barring access to the source code repository. Why would anyone waste their resources managing a service that adds no value beyond a third-party service like GitHub?

        • lysdexic@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep

          So Microsoft has access to Firefox’s source code. So what? Isn’t the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?

          • TCB13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is. I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them and instead got this move. Well… I guess this is like unique browser ID that each installation has or the fact that it contacts a 3rd party analytics company no matter your settings - people start by complaining and eventually even say it is right. lol so much for privacy and whatnot.

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Because while you do have control (and “copies”) of the source code repository, that’s not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, …

        If Microsoft decided to fuck you over you’d have a hard time migrating the “community” around that source code somewhere else.

        Obviously depends on what features you are using, but for example losing all tickets would be problematic for any projects.

        Apparently Mozilla won’t be even accepting PRs there so it doesn’t matter much.

        • lysdexic@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because while you do have control (and “copies”) of the source code repository, that’s not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, …

          The announcement to drop Mercurial quite clearly states that their workflow won’t change and that GitHub pull requests are not considered a part of their workflow.

          Also, that’s entirely irrelevant to start with. Either you care about software freedom and software quality, or you don’t. If you care about software freedom you care about having free and unrestricted access to FLOSS projects such as Firefox, which GitHub clearly provides. If you care about software quality you’d care about the Firefox team picking the absolute best tools for the job that they themselves picked.

    • knopwob@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Imho the main argument for github is that it lowers the hurdle for new ane ad-hoc contributions like issues. I’m problably too lazy to registsr a new account for your instance just to open a bug report.

      I’d love a federated git/issue/wiki thing

      • SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I keep hearing people only on Lemmy bring up Gitea but I haven’t really heard of it otherwise. What’s the appeal and what’s keeping it locked away with the Lemmy community?

      • ck_@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I would doubt that. Github for organizations becomes rather expensive rather quickly if you want to retain some level of control, so I doubt Mozilla will opt for the minimum “free for open source” offering.

        • lysdexic@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Github for organizations becomes rather expensive rather quickly (…)

          I’m not sure if that’s relevant. GitHub’s free plan also supports GitHub organizations, and GitHub’s Team plan costs only around $4/(developer*month). You can do the math to check how many developers you’d have to register in a GitHub Team plan to match the operational expense of hiring a person to manage a self-hosted instance from 9-to-5.

  • idunnololz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    11 months ago

    Slightly confusing title here. A less confusing title would be “Mozilla drops support for Mercurial, moves Firefox repository to GitHub”.

    • lysdexic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      A less confusing title would be “Mozilla drops support for Mercurial (…)

      It’s not even about GitHub at all. Taken straight out of the announcement:

      “For a long time Firefox Desktop development has supported both Mercurial and Git users. This dual SCM requirement places a significant burden on teams which are already stretched thin in parts. We have made the decision to move Firefox development to Git.”

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        But a few lines later:

        Although we’ll be hosting the repository on GitHub, our contribution workflow will remain unchanged and we will not be accepting Pull Requests at this time

        So I don’t know if you meant that the focus of the change wasn’t GH or that they weren’t using GH at all, but it seems like the latter is untrue.

        • lysdexic@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          you meant that the focus of the change wasn’t GH

          They are dropping Mercurial and focusing on Git. Incidentally, they happen to host the Git project on GitHub. GitHub is used for hosting, and they don’t even use basic features such as pull requests.

          Again, this is really not about GitHub at all.

        • sim642@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is the crucial detail that everyone is missing.

          It’s the same as with the Linux kernel GitHub mirror.

  • ActionHank@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Cool now I can actually check it out. Tried to previously but my connection failed about an hour into the clone. --depth=1 --shallow-submodules --recurse-submodules should really be given its own command in git. Not really sure why’d they choose MS as their host though.

  • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Chromium has a mirror on GitHub and it’s fine. While it feels a little strange to have just one mirror (on GitHub), after moving to git entirely, nobody is stopping to them from hosting a GitLab mirror.

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The repository will be hosted on GitHub, though the move is expected to take “at least six months before the migration begins.”

    Another major opensource project that chooses a proprietary hosting platform 🤷

    • Sigmatics@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Let’s be honest here, at least like 98% of the popular OSS is on GitHub at this point. You don’t have to like it, but it’s how things are

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Doesn’t mean that they have to continue putting stuff there. But oh well, maybe once ForgeFed becomes a real thing, things might change a little.

        • Sigmatics@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It does. OSS needs visibility, it needs contributions

          GitHub’s community and discoverability features really help with that, as much as it sucks that they got acquired by Microsoft

      • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Open source was M$’ archenemy that they knew they couldn’t compete against. So they slithered in and co-opted it and everyone just ignores the perils and carries on.

        • TechNom (nobody)@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not to mention the fact that they trained copilot using code on it, without informing or taking permission from the authors and they justify it citing fair use policy.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      GitHub is just serving as public code mirror, it’s not going to be their hosting platform.

    • IAm_A_Complete_Idiot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not battle tested on massive projects nor does it have the prior mindshare git has. It doesn’t have a lot of tooling either. (Does any CI/CD system support pijul?) It has nice properties, but ultimately git with all it’s terrible warts is well understood.

      • Alex@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        CI/CD

        Pijul as git or hg or any other is a VCS, so what are you talking about? If you mean web-service like GitHub with social things and CI/CD services, so yes, nest have CI/CD with nix. But mostly you shouldn’t host your huge project on the Nest because, as I’m absolutely sure, you as anyone other should create your own host (public or private) to support decentralization to prevent github-like centralization situation. Pijul was created with decentralization in first place in mind.

        Not tested with big projects in production

        Not publicly. Many private projects, personal and in-company, that uses pijul are existing. Personally I have one HUGE personal. Also I worked for two companies where pijul is used.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Doesn’t make much sense to judge a program by its underlying language. While I don’t enjoy writing Python much anymore for several reasons it can produce perfectly fine applications. Mercurial is one such example.

    • lysdexic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      So, from a decentralised solution to the world’s biggest repository

      You need to check your notes. Git is decentralized, even if you host a repository somewhere.

      Decisions like these (…)

      As a Firefox user, these initiatives matter nothing in my decision to use Firefox. In fact, I’m glad they went this way. They need to focus on working on code instead of wasting their time with irrelevant details.

        • lysdexic@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          how centeralised GitHub

          It’s a pointless and irrelevant remark. Mozilla uses Git to track work on Firefox. GitHub provides Git repositories. I can clone Firefox out of GitHub, create an account on GitLab/Bitbucket, push the code there, and GitHub does not feature as a concern at all.

          What point can you possibly think you’re able to make regarding GitHub?

          GitHub is enshittifying everything that has to do with Git.

          Nonsense. Speaking as someone who actually hosts the same projects on GitHub and other version control providers, GitHub does not even feature as an implementation detail.

          I’m starting to think you’re just trolling.

          You should care.

          I do my best to not waste my time with irrelevant nonsense. It’s silly to believe that the version control system you use has any influence on the quality of the software you deliver.