Git

4533 readers

1 users here now

Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.

Resources

Rules

Follow programming.dev rules
Be excellent to each other, no hostility towards users for any reason
No spam of tools/companies/advertisements. It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.

Git Logo by Jason Long is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

jnovinger@programming.dev

canpolat@programming.dev

Getting out of "evil" GitHub (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by dogs0n@sh.itjust.works to c/git@programming.dev

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just to be clear: I'm not asking for github alternatives.

If you had an open source project that is somewhat deeply rooted in GitHub's ecosystem and wanted to move to another service, how would you proceed?

I'd really want to self host a service, but then i'd be subjecting my internet to regular clones or downloads of releases (I'm not sure how much that'd effect me generally, but it seems worth considering).

No one's internet is as reliable as a cloud hosted service either, so there's also that to consider.

So I guess a cloud option? (Codeberg probably btw)

But then (either way) you're potentially splitting a community I'd imagine?

You can mirror repos to github, but if you have a project small enough and it forces issues/prs on another service, is anyone gonna bother?

Maybe you just have to swap and be okay with less people around, just so you can get out of Microsoft's grip in open source.

Do you have any thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

In practice these won't be concerns. "Usually" if it's an important project, the distribution is not based around github. It's pypi for python or npm for js, or a package distributor on linux, or a store or whatever.

A weird mixed setup would be providing some kind of signed object through torrents, don't know how that works in practice, but that would avoid stressing your own internet too much.

Yes, you will lose some "driveby" error reports from people who don't want to make a codeberg account to report the bug on. But then they don't actually "need" need it solved either.

Make it a single source of truth, point to the new repo in the old one and update the descriptions in the distributing websites/services and that's it.

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

I guess I have a slightly different problem in that I use GitHub Container Registry to host release images.

I haven't looked, but I would think Codeberg might have something similar.

I would use Docker's registry, but that feels like stepping sideways instead of forwards for some reason.

Yes, you will lose some "driveby" error reports from people who don't want to make a codeberg account to report the bug on. But then they don't actually "need" need it solved either.

That's a very good point. I had thought of keeping the github repo mirrored so that it could be used for issues (and maybe prs?) still, but your point has me rethinking the need.

Make it a single source of truth, point to the new repo in the old one and update the descriptions in the distributing websites/services and that's it.

I will certainly consider this. It would definitely be easier than setting up a mirror in addition to moving.

I guess I'm worried that without an "active" side on github, the project will lose any traction it has gained since I didn't advertise it, I think github naturally brought people in.

Thank you for your reply, it is very helpful!