[HN Gopher] Nginx has moved to GitHub
___________________________________________________________________
Nginx has moved to GitHub
Author : doctorwhat
Score : 175 points
Date : 2024-09-06 15:17 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mailman.nginx.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (mailman.nginx.org)
| xeromal wrote:
| I wonder how the interim process is handled? They're accepting
| mailing list updates until the end of the year.
|
| Does someone take the mailing list updates and manually PR them
| into Github? I've never actually used a mailing list so I'm
| curious how it works.
| hinkley wrote:
| Remember Linus created git to help deal with an ever escalating
| inbox full of patches.
| layer8 wrote:
| You have your history wrong here.
| hinkley wrote:
| No I don't. You're confusing motivation with requirements.
| I'm talking about requirements.
|
| But of advice. Outside of TV programming, when an American
| is talking about why a tool was created, they almost always
| mean its purpose, not its origin story. That inspiration
| story on TV is aimed at inventors. The people who use the
| tools don't care, and it's an anecdote for the rest of us.
|
| I suspect that has something to do with that illusion we
| maintained of American Ingenuity. I don't need the back
| story, what's it for?
| aryonoco wrote:
| _cough_ BitKeeper _cough_
| hinkley wrote:
| What the fuck does that have to do with git's design?
| juped wrote:
| I'm sorry people are being dismissively snide and downvotive
| about this reasonable characterization of things (see:
| https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=111288700902396) because
| they think knowing the factoid that linux used bitkeeper is
| some kind of "epic own".
| hinkley wrote:
| Yeah these are Reddit quality replies today.
| juped wrote:
| No, git is an email driven program, not a terrible-webapp
| driven program. You pipe the email into git am (if it's from
| mercurial insert hg-patch-to-git-patch into the pipeline, which
| iirc just rewrites date formats mainly?)
| layer8 wrote:
| Probably the same as with Mercurial before. Mailing lists are
| just regular emails that are automatically remailed to multiple
| recipients.
| aryonoco wrote:
| Around 15 or so years ago, when a lot of projects were moving
| from cvs/mailing lists to git, there were a plethora of perl
| scripts and other tools which automatically took the code and
| sent the commit to git, usually taking a "rules" file as input
| which stipulated how to match various email headers with git
| tags etc. No idea how many of them are still around or used,
| but there should be some
| aseipp wrote:
| With a mailing list you download a patch and apply it with "git
| am", then push it to the repository -- as you are presumably
| the maintainer who has permission to do that, and assuming the
| patch is good. You basically just do code review through email
| and reading the patches with some git functions. It completely
| sucks in my opinion, but some people like it, or it's how they
| do things in those parts, etc. When in Rome...
|
| Having done a similar rodeo in the past -- migrating a project
| to an actual code review tool that enforces some more rigid
| structure, over plain patch files -- the interim process will
| probably be something like:
|
| - Previously, some key people were allowed to commit to trunk
| directly.
|
| - They would read emails/patches, do code review, apply, and
| push them to trunk.
|
| - For now, you can keep emailing people your patches like you
| did before. Nothing will change.
|
| - But at a certain point, you'll have to use this new Other
| Method.
|
| - So, you should probably get familiar with Other Method early,
| by using it in the meantime, so you can be ready.
|
| - At some point, no more patch files will be accepted and you
| will have to use Other Method.
|
| - In the meantime, the maintainers will do double-duty and
| handle both venues.
|
| Most projects are small enough where the double-duty isn't so
| bad. Most people will switch quick enough and you probably
| aren't dealing with 1,000 patches. It sucks but the payoff is
| considered worth it.
|
| Eventually once this is completed you can do things like stop
| pushing directly to trunk and handling all patches to main
| through the Other Method. But you don't have to do that. It
| does sound like they'll stop accepting email patches, though.
| jsheard wrote:
| What's the state of nginx nowadays? Last I heard the original
| core team had fractured and formed two different forks while F5
| continued to develop OG nginx, so there's three nginxes being
| developed in parallel now. Have the forks gained any traction?
| 0x1ch wrote:
| The state of nginx is fine, similar to pfsense. Both made a
| "Plus" enterprise support offering, open source clones were
| forked, the originals remain dominant for enterprise and free
| users anyways. Not to detract from the great projects that are
| being worked on, like freenginx and opnsense.
| nicholasjarnold wrote:
| > the originals remain dominant for enterprise and free users
| anyways.
|
| I'm a former pfSense user that reluctantly moved to OPNsense
| a handful of years ago after a lot of bad press around
| Netgate started circulating widely causing me to believe that
| support for the community offering might wane over time. I
| was under the impression that many people had moved off of
| pfSense for home use. I'm surprised by your assertion that it
| "remains dominant" for free users, and I wonder how you might
| know this?
|
| OPNsense has been rock solid for me, btw. I was reluctant to
| switch only because of the time sink and perceived risk.
| Nobody wants to spend a weekend debugging VLAN tagging on
| their WAN port or some such. Luckily for me, there were no
| such issues when switching over.
| SpecialistK wrote:
| pfSense maintains some momentum due to name recognition,
| but anyone who digs a little deeper will see that they're
| clowns and go with OPN instead.
| stepupmakeup wrote:
| TEngine might be the most well-known fork
| jsheard wrote:
| That ones new to me, I was aware of Angie and Freenginx which
| are both led by former nginx developers who left F5 after the
| acquisition. TEngine looks to be a much older fork but I
| can't find much recent discussion about it, though that may
| be because it's an Alibaba/Taobao project with a primarily
| Chinese userbase judging by the GitHub issues.
| chrsig wrote:
| You know, for most projects, I'd think that'd be pretty...bad.
| Given that nginx only recently got dynamic module support, I'm
| curious how many people are out there having grown to build it
| from source, letting them switch upstreams a bit more easily.
| perhaps. maybe.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Pretty much every major nginx deployment I'm familiar with
| has been from source. Dynamic modules aren't really _that_
| new but certainly post-date a lot of deployments. But also
| bigger deployments tend to want full control of which in-tree
| modules are compiled into nginx, which dependencies they pull
| in (for security and deployment reasons), and how quickly
| patches and security releases can be updated.
|
| It also has a fairly simple from-source deployment with a
| fairly solid build script.
| chrsig wrote:
| "new" is subjective -- I'll catch up with the times
| eventually, I'm sure :)
|
| but yeah, I've had to write said script due to needing to
| compile in proprietary modules.
|
| It's just a bit of CI glue, pretty straightforward and
| quick build -- thanking to it being written in C rather
| than C++.
| azzentys wrote:
| Recently, I was browsing an open source project I use a lot.
| "Sign in to search code on GitHub" was kinda discouraging to see.
|
| Sure, I can clone it and run grep/ripgrep - but sometimes I like
| the ability to search the code on the browser.
|
| Is it only GitHub where this is a restriction or GitLab is
| similar?
| eblume wrote:
| It's worth mentioning here I think that github's code search is
| really quite good. I'm not trying to say that github can do no
| harm or that github "owning" OSS code hosting is a good thing,
| but the github search bar is a utility that IMO is worth the
| price of admission.
|
| I think that sourcegraph maintains a similar quality OSS code
| search that can be searched for free but I have not personally
| used it.
| nicce wrote:
| Interesting blog about how it works:
| https://github.blog/engineering/the-technology-behind-
| github...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The problem is that GH makes it the login process as painful
| as possible. Login tokens expire frequently, necessitating
| new logins. Logins require 2fa every time, which makes them
| extremely flow-breaking. Post-login you're not returned to
| the file you were on, so now you need to navigate back to
| search.
|
| Logins are per domain and per device, so I end up dealing
| with this 4x per day if I'm using GitHub heavily. It's
| unnecessary.
| aseipp wrote:
| To me, ordinary login is one of the things they've
| genuinely improved over time I feel? I absolutely never
| deal with logins more than once a day per machine? With
| stuff like Passkey support now, I basically click two
| buttons in 1Pass and I'm logged in instantly on
| ~everywhere. I also feel like I never have my tokens
| expire.
|
| I'm probably not doing the same stuff as you. It's
| sudo/elevated mode that really gets you I think, if you
| have no fast flow. Admittedly I don't add keys or anything
| like that very often.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| GH Enterprise and public GH don't share tokens, so 1
| login/day automatically becomes 2. Then, logins aren't
| shared across devices and 2 additional devices (phone and
| personal computer) makes 4 logins/day.
|
| Not sure why GitHub expires tokens so quickly, but I can
| replicate it across every device I own and multiple
| accounts. Maybe they just don't like me?
| samcat116 wrote:
| I have never experienced this. I almost never have to log
| in after the initial login.
| LtWorf wrote:
| It's to be more secure!
|
| Of course then you can do everything with your never
| expiring ssh keys and application tokens... but that
| doesn't count :D
| acheong08 wrote:
| What? My login tokens haven't expired in years. I don't
| think I've had to sign in twice on the same computer ever
| plorkyeran wrote:
| This is not at all my experience with Github? I go through
| the 2fa flow maybe once a year, if that. I have to go
| through the SSO flow for my employer's private repositories
| once a day (which is my employer's policy, not Github's),
| but that properly redirects to the page I was trying to
| access.
|
| Does your employer have a SSO flow that requires 2fa every
| time and doesn't redirect properly afterwards? That would
| be pretty annoying, but it's not Github's fault.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Happens even with my personal GitHub account across
| multiple browsers/operating systems.
| Alupis wrote:
| Counter-anecdote. I cannot even remember the last time I
| was asked to log into Github, at the office, at home, on
| my laptop, and even on my phone.
|
| Do you perhaps have a browser setting that nukes
| cookies/session data by any chance? Or perhaps use a VPN
| that might be tripping some sort of account protection
| mechanism?
| mh- wrote:
| Counter-counter, I share his experience as well and don't
| have any of those things. Just bog standard Chrome with
| no extensions.
|
| What I _do_ have, and I expect is relevant: frequent
| ~weeklong gaps where I don 't access GitHub at all in
| this browser profile. I assume there's some medium-lived
| token that's refreshed when you access the site.
| mh- wrote:
| Mine too. It wasn't always like this, but nowadays if I
| haven't accessed the site in a handful of days there's a
| good chance I'm logged out when I go. And it requires
| logging in, then mobile 2FA. It's very annoying.
| Alupis wrote:
| Just to put this out there - but this doesn't actually
| sound that unreasonable.
|
| Your tokens/session _should_ expire at some point. We can
| argue over what might be a reasonable duration, but it
| definitely should expire.
|
| What might be going on is if you visit the site/app it
| renews the token/session if it's still valid. So if you
| are relatively active on GH, you will stay logged in -
| otherwise you will eventually be logged out.
|
| Just guessing, but all of this does seem reasonable.
| There's a lot your Github account can do, including a lot
| of damage to you and any organizations you are part of.
| mh- wrote:
| Totally agree with all of that, and still find it
| (perhaps irrationally!) annoying when it happens.
| aseipp wrote:
| There are some alternatives like https://grep.app or
| https://sourcegraph.com/search if you want fast live search,
| but at the end of the day these are services offered by
| companies, and rather expensive ones especially for free
| anonymous users, so you should probably at least accept that
| service providers can and do change things like this.
|
| You can also run something like your own copy of Zoekt and then
| ingest repositories on demand though it isn't quite as instant.
| But if it's code you're already using extensively, it seems
| like it might be worth it. Maybe you can write some boondoggle
| to automatically ingest repos based on dependency metadata,
| even.
| amiga386 wrote:
| Github managed to provided search to free anonymous users
| since its inception in 2007, to mid-2023 when they introduced
| this new code search.
|
| I would submit that this change is entirely business-related:
| it's a power-play to make people create accounts and stay
| logged in so they can track you better. It is not that they
| cannot afford it, it is that they are enshittifying the
| service to further their interests.
|
| If they were really worried about money, they could lock it
| down completely so only paying customers could use the
| service at all... and then they'd lose a huge chunk of
| customers and lose all the prestige they build in convincing
| a huge pile of the world's free/open source software to use
| them as their hosting. So they don't do that - they keep all
| the prestige and the network effects by seeming _quite_ open,
| but they'll lock down _parts_ of the experience to try and
| force specific behaviour.
|
| > you should probably at least accept that service providers
| can and do change things like this.
|
| Indeed, you should. It should serve as a wake-up call that
| other people's services/platforms aren't under your control,
| and you can't rely on them to meet your needs.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| > it's a power-play to make people create accounts and stay
| logged in so they can track you better
|
| Github doesn't even serve ads. What exactly are you worried
| about? Your throwaway email being primary key #78,000,000
| and having your visited repositories stored in another
| table?
| jen20 wrote:
| Microsoft serves ads though. I haven't looked through the
| terms and conditions, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't
| permitted for GitHub to give whatever they can glean from
| your data to their corporate overlord.
| eesmith wrote:
| Yes, they send personal data to Microsoft for advertising
| purposes. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/privacy-
| policies/gith...
|
| > Affiliates: Personal Data may be shared with GitHub
| affiliates, including Microsoft, to facilitate customer
| service, marketing and advertising, order fulfillment,
| billing, technical support, and legal and compliance
| obligations. Our affiliates may only use the Personal
| Data in a manner consistent with this Privacy Statement.
| authorfly wrote:
| It's a change in direction, one by one these things
| change, one day, there are Ads, or your github repo
| search journey is being used to train the AI programmer
| to replace you in those very libraries and repos you
| develop expertise in.
|
| There's no good to come of requiring people to log in for
| the consumer. Online Tracking is never good for the
| consumer.
| fph wrote:
| Yes. Microsoft is already siphoning data everywhere they
| can, why should I give them more?
|
| Most people have their real name and e-mail there because
| they use it to sign code in trusted repositories, so it's
| easy to combine these data with other sources.
| VancouverMan wrote:
| I've never had any success creating a GitHub account with
| a throwaway email address.
|
| The last time I tried, I'm pretty sure the email address
| was rejected right away, and the account couldn't be
| created.
|
| Not being able to reasonably create an account there is
| certainly annoying when it comes to performing simple
| searches.
|
| It has also prevented me from submitting new bug reports
| and adding information to existing bug reports for a
| number of open source projects over the years.
|
| I'm always disappointed when I see an open source project
| using GitHub, because it makes contributing to that
| project more or less impossible.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I've gotten by with AnonAddy, so you may have success
| there too (unless they've blocked the domain since).
| encom wrote:
| I deleted my account and moved my stuff when Microsoft
| took it over, and never looked back. A project on Github
| is a project i will not interact with. People have very
| short memories.
| HellzStormer wrote:
| Personally, I don't think this is a valid case of
| enshittifying. Products that you pay for that loses
| features or break or become more painful to use are
| enshittifying.
|
| A free feature that stays free but requires you to make a
| free account (no credit card needed), I can see at least
| one very valid reason: if the feature heavier than a simple
| page (which is the case here), then it's an open door for
| DDOS attacks. Being able to track and ban/block the users
| that appear to participate in such an attack is totally
| valid.
|
| The alternative is having to do captchas and the like to
| use those features anonymously, which is a pain both for
| user and for the devs/UI, and does feel more like the
| overall enshittification you are mentionning (even if it's
| a valid reason)
| amiga386 wrote:
| > The alternative is having to do captchas and the like
| to use those features anonymously
|
| This is not the case. You may have noticed that Google
| Search, Bing, etc. don't require login or captcha to do a
| search. Billions of people use this search daily. And
| yet, they _will_ throw a captcha at you, or even just say
| "you're a bot, stop bothering us" _whether you 're logged
| in or not_, if their signals have detected what they
| consider abuse.
|
| Clearly, their signals are not as naive as "anonymous
| user, require captcha / logged-in user, no checks
| required". Preventing DDOS != requiring login.
|
| They like you logged in because they can add more data to
| their verified user identity and activity datasets and
| sell them for more money. They already make _enough_
| money to run the service despite all the anonymous usage,
| but they 'd like _more_ money, you see.
|
| Github managed to offer anonymous search for 16 years
| before one day Microsoft took it away. Do you think it
| was due to DDOS attacks, or do you think it was a power-
| play to attract more sign-ups and logins?
| Alupis wrote:
| > They already make enough money to run the service
| despite all the anonymous usage, but they'd like more
| money, you see.
|
| How mighty of you, a freeloading user in this specific
| situation, to assert Github has made " _enough_ " money
| and therefore should offer you services at their own
| expense... you know, because you _want_ it and therefore
| are _entitled_ to it.
|
| > Github managed to offer anonymous search for 16 years
| before one day Microsoft took it away. Do you think it
| was due to DDOS attacks, or do you think it was a power-
| play to attract more sign-ups and logins?
|
| So what's the issue here, really? Make a free account and
| move on with life. Or clone the repo and search it
| locally if you need to. Or decide to take some principled
| stance and refuse to work with projects hosted on Github.
| It's your choice.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| It's Microsoft, one of the most successful companies in
| human history. A poorly formed moralistic argument about
| "entitlement" is absurd. They certainly feel entitled to
| every aspect of my life, as do most other Fortune 500
| companies, I think I can safely desire not needing to log
| in during a damn search.
| Alupis wrote:
| So again, because Microsoft has more money than you do,
| it _entitles_ you to their services _for free_?
|
| Where else in life does this logic apply?
|
| Perhaps you waded into a conversation without even
| understanding the core complaint. You _can_ search on
| Github without a user account, entirely _for free_.
| However, they do not provide context-based code search to
| non-users, despite it still being free.
|
| If for whatever reasons you cannot possibly be bothered
| to create a _free_ user account out of some irrational
| fear Github will sell your codebase search history to
| advertisers (laugh out loud, literally), then you don 't
| get to use that feature. Clone the repo and search it
| yourself, or find a different deep-pocketed service that
| lets you mooch everything for free.
|
| tldr; Why are freeloaders always the loudest complainers?
| dsr_ wrote:
| For the last seven months, Google has pushed every non-
| login search from my house network through a captcha; the
| image captcha is typically five to infinite repetitions.
| Audio captcha works after a single run-through, except
| that it is frequently "unavailable" now.
|
| I don't know why. Google won't tell me. They just started
| doing the same for YouTube: "Please login because we have
| detected malicious behavior from your network".
|
| I know I'm not DDOSing them; I can see all our network
| traffic. They're just encouraging me to avoid using them.
| smolder wrote:
| You're probably blocking ads or blocking tracking in some
| fashion and denying them signals their naive models use
| to evaluate whether you're bot-or-not. It could be
| somewhat intentional but I'd lean towards it being an
| edge case they just don't care to address.
| LtWorf wrote:
| Well maybe someone in your network or subnet is doing
| some abuse.
| winkelmann wrote:
| The new GitHub search has some more advanced features
| than Google, Bing, etc. do, such as Regex:
| https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/github-code-
| search/...
|
| Of course, they could have kept the old search (without
| advanced filters) open, but there is at least a sensible
| explanation why the new search requires being signed in.
| arp242 wrote:
| > I would submit that this change is entirely business-
| related
|
| Developers working on it have said it's due to performance
| reasons. I don't have a link handy, but it's in some HN
| thread.
| amiga386 wrote:
| They claimed the _new_ search requires logins due to
| performance reasons... they have no reason, other than
| they want to use _both_ the carrot _and_ the stick in
| driving signups and logins, to take away their existing
| search, the one they didn 't have a problem offering for
| 16 years, completely.
| arp242 wrote:
| So those people are outright lying through their teeth?
| Got it.
|
| You're just reasoning from negativity and cynicism. No
| evidence for anything. Other than "zomg they're bad".
| amiga386 wrote:
| I didn't say they were lying. It can be true that their
| new search is better but costlier to run. They can focus
| on that in their PR, along with how shiny and new the
| shiny new search is, to distract you that they are
| removing anonymous search and making the site worse.
|
| Nobody made them turn off the old search, they chose
| that, and they bundled the two together in one PR push.
|
| Fancy new search = carrot. Remove anonymous search =
| stick. Carrot and stick work together to drive more
| signups, more logins, more data tracked, more data sales,
| more money.
| pcl wrote:
| I completely understand where they're coming from.
|
| Maintaining two separate search stacks for different user
| groups sounds like a nightmare. Multiply that by every
| feature that increases in complexity enough to bubble up
| on the cost-center metrics, and it for sure makes sense
| to prune complexity at the cost of secondary-feature
| functionality for anonymous requests.
| Alupis wrote:
| Besides all of that - Github has _zero_ obligation to
| provide _Free_ services to users, let alone _non-users_.
|
| The person you are responding to doesn't even want to
| make a _free_ account yet expects to be able to use all
| of Github 's services _for free_. That 's some wild
| entitlement.
|
| The disconnect here is unreal...
| fragmede wrote:
| Same with Twitter, tbh
| pelasaco wrote:
| Its not hard to understand why a service like exercism
| has no money. People want everything for free
| nicce wrote:
| > The person you are responding to doesn't even want to
| make a free account yet expects to be able to use all of
| Github's services for free.
|
| To be fair, definition of free depends. OPs argument was
| that they pay with data. That is not free if you think
| that you lose something. It is different question do we
| value it similarly.
| Alupis wrote:
| Ok then, so that's like going to a restaurant and
| complaining the food costs money. Metaphoric " _duh_ ".
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That's not accurate. GitHub is still getting lots of data
| from people without accounts, and providing open access
| helps them get more users in general.
|
| If we _have_ to do a restaurant analogy, it 's like going
| to a restaurant (buffet?), opting out of premium, and
| still wanting access to a particular food item. It's not
| automatically ridiculous.
| smcnally wrote:
| I don't begrudge them requesting an authorized user
| account for some cases. YMMV. They balance this against
| allowing more open access to other projects, features and
| functions. Their balanced approach seems reasonable.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| The developers have also said that the new UI is an
| improvement. And yet...
| sjshn wrote:
| As a fairly recently departed GitHub employee, I know with
| certainty that this change is primarily related to abuse.
| The search infrastructure (both old and new) is complicated
| and expensive to run, and anonymous search was abused at a
| remarkably large scale. DDoS against the anonymous search
| service was a big problem, but another was the presence of
| many very large search botnets that constantly scraped the
| site for secrets and other confidential data inadvertently
| made public. Long time users might remember that anonymous
| search was aggressively rate-limited on a per-IP basis, but
| the size of the search botnets grew to a scale that made
| this ineffective.
|
| My personal opinion is that most enshittifying changes on
| GitHub are due to the proliferation of middle managers who
| are evaluated almost exclusively on speed-shipping net-new
| features at the expense of maintenance and incremental
| improvement of existing features.
| nicce wrote:
| > Is it only GitHub where this is a restriction or GitLab is
| similar?
|
| GitLab has had this long time.
| PhilipRoman wrote:
| I believe it was added when they made their search more
| advanced and presumably more resource intensive.
| amiga386 wrote:
| And yet, nothing stops them from continuing to offer their
| existing search to anonymous users. The search they have
| offered since inception.
|
| They chose to take the existing search away from anonymous
| users to drive signups and logins. "Sign up and log in to get
| improved search" is not as compelling as "sign up and log in
| to get _any search at all_ "
| corytheboyd wrote:
| Do you have to be logged in to open a repo with the web version
| of vscode on GitHub? If not, that could make for a Good Enough
| search interface. Try pressing `.` on a repo page to see if it
| works
| magnio wrote:
| You can change github.com to github1s.com to get VSCode in
| browser with fairly capable search without logging in. E.g.
| https://github1s.com/nginx/nginx
| nullify88 wrote:
| Alternatively the official site is vscode.dev.
| bityard wrote:
| That requires you to sign into github to open a github
| repo, which is what the OP was trying to avoid.
| oefrha wrote:
| I believe the search there uses Sourcegraph, so you can also
| search directly at https://sourcegraph.com/search. E.g. https
| ://sourcegraph.com/search?q=repo:github.com/nginx/nginx...
| radicality wrote:
| This thread from 9 months ago has a bunch of discussion on
| this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38432261
| zaik wrote:
| If you find searching locally cumbersome, you should know that
| you can do a "shallow" git clone which only downloads the most
| recent commit and is much faster than cloning the whole repo.
| git clone --depth 1 ...
| randomman1131 wrote:
| wow! about time... weren't they using mercurial for the longest
| time too?
| gpvos wrote:
| They could have moved to Sourcehut instead and kept using
| Mercurial.
| lagniappe wrote:
| I don't see that going well.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I like Sourcehut and I've very glad it exists. I almost
| personally detest its email-driven workflows. I don't claim
| that they're bad. Rather, I personally don't like that way
| of working at all. I'd far rather use GitLab or some random
| dev's Gitea/Forgejo server.
| dewey wrote:
| I think the point is to go where the community is, not
| further away from it.
| pachico wrote:
| Help me understand: they just migrated and already have 21k
| stars?
| ak217 wrote:
| It was previously a read-only mirror.
| quectophoton wrote:
| Yup, here I was wondering why I already had it starred if
| this move only happened today, but then reached the same
| conclusion that it was probably a mirror repository before.
| oblvious-earth wrote:
| No, it looks like it's been available on GitHub for a while,
| but development wasn't done there: https://star-
| history.com/#nginx/nginx&Date
| LtWorf wrote:
| Stars on github are completely meaningless, since there are
| services online you can hire to increase stars.
|
| In my project a considerable amount of stars come from blank
| accounts, that like also non-paying projects to avoid
| detection.
|
| I moved to codeberg now for my non work projects.
| juped wrote:
| Sad day for everyone, but it was probably inevitable with the
| original devs gone and the project managed by suit-types. No one
| gets fired for buying Microsoft and all that.
| gamepsys wrote:
| I think it's disappointing that the default toolchain for
| collaborating on free and open source software includes GitHub
| which is very much not free and open source, and is backed by
| Microsoft which has a mixed history in regards to it's
| relationship with open source software.
| lionkor wrote:
| I use it because its good right now. I used Windows until it
| turned bad (8) and Linux was easier.
|
| If GitHub becomes shit I'm moving my projects off of there and
| that's that.
| gamepsys wrote:
| Hopefully your projects aren't too ingrained in the github
| ecosystem for migrating to be an issue. It's a bug tracker, a
| feature request tracker, a patch tracker ,a wiki, a release
| repository, plus an onramp to all sorts of azure
| functionality with gh actions.
| jacooper wrote:
| I think it would've been a better choice to move to something
| they host like gitea or gitlab. nonetheless it's a step in the
| right direction, nobody should use mail+git in this day and age.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| _cough " Linux Kernel _cough*
| jacooper wrote:
| Just because Linux is still using it doesn't mean it's any
| good.
| Dr4kn wrote:
| Or it is good in that case, but that is true for very few
| projects.
| bsder wrote:
| Ayup. Which is why it is heartbreaking to see Nginx move
| from Mercurial which is good to Git which sucks.
|
| Thankfully, jujutsu exists so I can use a good version
| control system and still interoperate with the misguided
| who don't realize just how bad Git sucks.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| does anyone use mercurial anymore?
| incognito124 wrote:
| Big corpos like Google and Meta (sort of, at least)
| quectophoton wrote:
| Prosody, at least: https://hg.prosody.im/
| MattJ100 wrote:
| And we're very happy with the choice :)
|
| Mercurial has many neat features, and I much prefer working
| with it. I don't think Git is all bad, but I do feel sad that
| it has basically become an expectation that you use it, to
| the exclusion of all other options.
| badgersnake wrote:
| Centralise all the things.
|
| There is too much stuff of GitHub. From a resiliency point of
| view and from a monopoly point of view this is bad.
| minkles wrote:
| Ah no it's great. I'm waiting until they fuck something major
| up and will start an off-boarding consultancy.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| No different to SourceForge of the 90's apart from it had a
| kind of a community feel.
| abraae wrote:
| Source control is not like other systems. It's (largely) a
| backup of stuff that is stored elsewhere. Resilience/ monopoly
| concerns are much less.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| ^^ This. Git is a beautiful thing. Thanks again, Linus.
| badgersnake wrote:
| GitHub is pretty obviously more than just a git repo on a
| server.
| eesmith wrote:
| You must surely know that people use Microsoft GitHub for far
| more than source control, right?, with issue tracking, email
| notification, CI, and GitHub Actions.
|
| I recently tried to get a small FOSS project to switch to
| Codeburg. The answer was "no" because the free CI for them
| let them catch some MacOS on Apple Silicon bugs (the devs
| don't have that hardware locally), and because they are
| already used to GitHub, making it easier to onboard people
| and review PRs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-06 23:01 UTC)