OT: Convince me github is a wise choice
Hi Ben, Hi All, I'm quite conservative when it comes to relying on others' infrastructure so I need some help making me take the plunge. Please see below: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Ryan Macnak <rmacnak@gmail.com>
wrote:
What would be more helpful is if the VM build was fixed to work with
a cross compiler, so it would compile fast enough to test ARM and MIPS on Travis CI alongside IA32 and X64.
It would also help if the top-of-tree Intel VMs were always kept
working so we'd know which change broke something. Moving the Subversion repository to a more reliable host (which likely means migrating to Git) would also cut down on the false positives Travis reports because the Subversion server has a habit of dropping connections.
+1 github :)
btw, Did you know that github supports subversion clients since 2011 [1]? Here are supported features [2]. Are these sufficient for your current svn workflows? Potentially we could have ONE repository and those liking subversion can stick with it and those liking git can use that. Of course, this would need to be proven.
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please. [4] Provides pragmatic advice for cutting over. Esteban appears to
have done similar to step 1 and 2 [3] - but it seem sometimes his modifications directly update this mirror so its not clear to see when that branch is an *exact* copy of the current svn trunk. So I'd love to see a github repository that is always an *exact* mirror of the svn repository, with any pharo mods occurring in a branch off that. Even better if the repository for svn users resides on github in place of that mirror.
I've been googling around for problems reported using github via an svn client, and haven't found any smoking guns. Is this something we can trial? I'm willing to put some effort into it. A key requirement would be not interrupting Eliots work on Spur-64. Potentially we could stay for months on step 3 [4] with the CI infrastructure running on the git side, but code check-ins continuing onthe svn side.
btw2, [5] provides a use case for the advantages of a full switch.
cheers -ben
[1] https://github.com/blog/966-improved-subversion-client-support [2] https://help.github.com/articles/support-for-subversion-clients/ [3] https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm/network [4] http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/01/atlassian-svn-to-git-migration-technical-... [5] http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/01/svn-to-git-how-atlassian-made-the-switch-...
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:29, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben, Hi All,
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
1.) You will lose bug reports (if you decide to use bugtracker) 2.) You will lose comments/discussion on pull requests 3.) You might lose the wiki content 4.) Unless you and nobody else in this community has the git tree you lose the history of the project. 1.) You might decide not to use their bug tracker? 2.) You might decide not to use the pull request workflow or risk losing some context that is outside the commit message, change. 3.) Don't use it then. 4.) One can mitigate by either automatically synchronising the repo to another place or by having the primary somewhere else (which makes 2nd more hard than it should be). => long term. Keep a backup of the repo (and with git you always have that anyway) and if they kick everyone out, push it to another server. I hope this helps. holger PS: For my C level GSM stuff we run our own git infrastructure on git.osmocom.org and github is mirroring some of the repos to github.com/osmocom. This way people can discover our sources more easily, we discover 'forks' but right now we don't use the pull request system at all.
You can have your own Git infraestructure with something like GitLab Community Edition (Free) or Enterprise (Paid). <https://about.gitlab.com/features> The "good thing" about Github is that it gives visibility to what you do, which for Pharo/Squeak could be a big thing. If all the code in SmalltalkHub was moved to Github, the popularity of Smalltalk would go to the top 20. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2015-12-17 14:37 GMT-03:00 Holger Freyther <holger@freyther.de>:
On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:29, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben, Hi All,
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
1.) You will lose bug reports (if you decide to use bugtracker) 2.) You will lose comments/discussion on pull requests 3.) You might lose the wiki content 4.) Unless you and nobody else in this community has the git tree you lose the history of the project.
1.) You might decide not to use their bug tracker? 2.) You might decide not to use the pull request workflow or risk losing some context that is outside the commit message, change. 3.) Don't use it then. 4.) One can mitigate by either automatically synchronising the repo to another place or by having the primary somewhere else (which makes 2nd more hard than it should be).
=> long term. Keep a backup of the repo (and with git you always have that anyway) and if they kick everyone out, push it to another server.
I hope this helps.
holger
PS: For my C level GSM stuff we run our own git infrastructure on git.osmocom.org and github is mirroring some of the repos to github.com/osmocom. This way people can discover our sources more easily, we discover 'forks' but right now we don't use the pull request system at all.
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this?
I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario? Thousands and thousands of extra services directly depend on github; e.g. package managers like npm or bower pull directly from GH. If they would shut down, half of the internet would follow. Now I am not saying that this can't happen, all I am saying is that worrying that they would shut down from day-to-day without any notice is baseless, so if anything you should evaluate whether such scenario is something that you should worry about (compared to your house burning down or being flooded destroying your computer, home server and all on-site backup drives, which is something that happens regularly to people). But let's assume that evil corporate aliens send a meteor shower that hits all github datacenters. What are the primary offerings of GitHub? 1) online git repository 2) bug tracker 3) online collaboration 4) wiki/github pages --- those are just another git repositories, so it's same as 1) 5) organizations 6) other cowbells (graphs, contribution charts, etc. however those are just aggregations) Git is decentralized. So even if you have some central hub, such as github, or bitbucket, or gitlab, you are not writing your code directly on the website so at least one of the contributors will have the latest code. So if you are unprepared and you are hit by this scenario you don't lose your code. However as someone already pointed out, you can lose your bugs (would that be great? :)) and comments. If you are worried about it, you can always make a plan and back it up regularly https://github.com/joeyh/github-backup The only alternative is that you host it yourself (obviously you can't just use someone else because the issues will apply again). And now you have a billion of new problems: 1) you need a home server, or _paid_ virtual server, which costs money (either in the form of VS, or buying new components and paying for electricity bills) 2) you need to maintain it, which costs you time and energy (and time = money) 3) it will be slower, have worse uptime, and break (because you are not 500 people, do not have a reliable datacenters and things always go wrong) 4) it will not scale (it may be sufficient for you, or internal projects inside walls of your company; but if you want to open it to the world (because it is open source) then you have yet another world of trouble) 5) you still need to do off-site backups So all in all you will trade security of decisions of a malicious board and exchange it for other, much more realistic problems. And if such board would do that intentionally, it would definitely end up in court. Just because they proclaim in their TOS that they are free of any responsibility doesn't mean they actually are; especially if they intentionally mean harm. (And keeping your data hostage is very likely criminal.) To summarize: 1) use github 2) make off-site backups 3) be happy Peter On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
You can have your own Git infraestructure with something like GitLab Community Edition (Free) or Enterprise (Paid). <https://about.gitlab.com/features>
The "good thing" about Github is that it gives visibility to what you do, which for Pharo/Squeak could be a big thing. If all the code in SmalltalkHub was moved to Github, the popularity of Smalltalk would go to the top 20.
Regards!
Esteban A. Maringolo
2015-12-17 14:37 GMT-03:00 Holger Freyther <holger@freyther.de>:
On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:29, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben, Hi All,
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
1.) You will lose bug reports (if you decide to use bugtracker) 2.) You will lose comments/discussion on pull requests 3.) You might lose the wiki content 4.) Unless you and nobody else in this community has the git tree you lose the history of the project.
1.) You might decide not to use their bug tracker? 2.) You might decide not to use the pull request workflow or risk losing some context that is outside the commit message, change. 3.) Don't use it then. 4.) One can mitigate by either automatically synchronising the repo to another place or by having the primary somewhere else (which makes 2nd more hard than it should be).
=> long term. Keep a backup of the repo (and with git you always have that anyway) and if they kick everyone out, push it to another server.
I hope this helps.
holger
PS: For my C level GSM stuff we run our own git infrastructure on git.osmocom.org and github is mirroring some of the repos to github.com/osmocom. This way people can discover our sources more easily, we discover 'forks' but right now we don't use the pull request system at all.
On 17/12/2015 20:46, Peter Uhnák wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please. GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario? well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either you never know what might happen in the future (trust a divorced man) Thousands and thousands of extra services directly depend on github; e.g. package managers like npm or bower pull directly from GH. If they would shut down, half of the internet would follow. Now I am not saying that this can't happen, all I am saying is that worrying that they would shut down from day-to-day without any notice having a notice is only a small part of the problem
not that I am against Git, but I an understand the fear nicolas
is baseless, so if anything you should evaluate whether such scenario is something that you should worry about (compared to your house burning down or being flooded destroying your computer, home server and all on-site backup drives, which is something that happens regularly to people).
But let's assume that evil corporate aliens send a meteor shower that hits all github datacenters.
What are the primary offerings of GitHub? 1) online git repository 2) bug tracker 3) online collaboration 4) wiki/github pages --- those are just another git repositories, so it's same as 1) 5) organizations 6) other cowbells (graphs, contribution charts, etc. however those are just aggregations)
Git is decentralized. So even if you have some central hub, such as github, or bitbucket, or gitlab, you are not writing your code directly on the website so at least one of the contributors will have the latest code. So if you are unprepared and you are hit by this scenario you don't lose your code.
However as someone already pointed out, you can lose your bugs (would that be great? :)) and comments. If you are worried about it, you can always make a plan and back it up regularly https://github.com/joeyh/github-backup
The only alternative is that you host it yourself (obviously you can't just use someone else because the issues will apply again). And now you have a billion of new problems: 1) you need a home server, or _paid_ virtual server, which costs money (either in the form of VS, or buying new components and paying for electricity bills) 2) you need to maintain it, which costs you time and energy (and time = money) 3) it will be slower, have worse uptime, and break (because you are not 500 people, do not have a reliable datacenters and things always go wrong) 4) it will not scale (it may be sufficient for you, or internal projects inside walls of your company; but if you want to open it to the world (because it is open source) then you have yet another world of trouble) 5) you still need to do off-site backups
So all in all you will trade security of decisions of a malicious board and exchange it for other, much more realistic problems. And if such board would do that intentionally, it would definitely end up in court. Just because they proclaim in their TOS that they are free of any responsibility doesn't mean they actually are; especially if they intentionally mean harm. (And keeping your data hostage is very likely criminal.)
To summarize: 1) use github 2) make off-site backups 3) be happy
Peter
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
You can have your own Git infraestructure with something like GitLab Community Edition (Free) or Enterprise (Paid). <https://about.gitlab.com/features>
The "good thing" about Github is that it gives visibility to what you do, which for Pharo/Squeak could be a big thing. If all the code in SmalltalkHub was moved to Github, the popularity of Smalltalk would go to the top 20.
Regards!
Esteban A. Maringolo
2015-12-17 14:37 GMT-03:00 Holger Freyther <holger@freyther.de>:
On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:29, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben, Hi All,
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
1.) You will lose bug reports (if you decide to use bugtracker) 2.) You will lose comments/discussion on pull requests 3.) You might lose the wiki content 4.) Unless you and nobody else in this community has the git tree you lose the history of the project.
1.) You might decide not to use their bug tracker? 2.) You might decide not to use the pull request workflow or risk losing some context that is outside the commit message, change. 3.) Don't use it then. 4.) One can mitigate by either automatically synchronising the repo to another place or by having the primary somewhere else (which makes 2nd more hard than it should be).
=> long term. Keep a backup of the repo (and with git you always have that anyway) and if they kick everyone out, push it to another server.
I hope this helps.
holger
PS: For my C level GSM stuff we run our own git infrastructure on git.osmocom.org and github is mirroring some of the repos to github.com/osmocom. This way people can discover our sources more easily, we discover 'forks' but right now we don't use the pull request system at all.
-- Nicolas Anquetil RMod team -- Inria Lille
2015-12-17 17:08 GMT-03:00 Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil@inria.fr>:
On 17/12/2015 20:46, Peter Uhnák wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario?
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
Google code was really small compared with Github. GitHub is monumental. It's to source management what Gmail is to email.
you never know what might happen in the future (trust a divorced man)
You get half the code? (the part that needs refactoring probably)
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-12-17 17:08 GMT-03:00 Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil@inria.fr>:
On 17/12/2015 20:46, Peter Uhnák wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party
from
buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario?
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
Google code was really small compared with Github.
GitHub is monumental. It's to source management what Gmail is to email.
you never know what might happen in the future (trust a divorced man)
You get half the code? (the part that needs refactoring probably)
ROTFL _,,,^..^,,,_ thanks, Eliot
Google is king of abandonware , they have closed down half of their software projects, Google Code was just the tip of the iceberg . The other half is close to be abandoned or at least heavily outdated. Moreover google code was crappy anyway, its close down went unnoticed. Github is nowhere anything like Google and its insult to even compare the two. On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:26 PM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo < emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-12-17 17:08 GMT-03:00 Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil@inria.fr>:
On 17/12/2015 20:46, Peter Uhnák wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third
party from
buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario?
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
Google code was really small compared with Github.
GitHub is monumental. It's to source management what Gmail is to email.
you never know what might happen in the future (trust a divorced man)
You get half the code? (the part that needs refactoring probably)
ROTFL
_,,,^..^,,,_ thanks, Eliot
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Google is king of abandonware , they have closed down half of their software projects, Google Code was just the tip of the iceberg . The other half is close to be abandoned or at least heavily outdated. Moreover google code was crappy anyway, its close down went unnoticed.
Github is nowhere anything like Google and its insult to even compare the two.
This is an interesting comparison. Google have experimented in many different directions away from their core business of search, that end up coming to an end. Indeed if you look at the reason googlecode was shut down, google says: "when it started Google Code when project hosting options were limited, but since launch in 2006, it's seen a "wide variety of better project hosting services" such as GitHub and Bitbucket rise to the forefront. ... Google itself has transferred nearly a thousand of its own open-source projects to the popular coding repository GitHub." [1] A service shutting down sometime should be considered, but its a different scenario that the one asked -- of new corporate overlords extorting money from users. Probably the worst example of this is Sourceforge. Once the darling on the open source community, Sourceforge have committed reputational suicide [2] taking over projects that moved elsewhere, and then bundling Adware with their installers. [3] digs into the possibility the same could happen to Github. Nothing is certain, but at least considering whether Github might do something similar: * AFAIAA Sourceforge never had paid developer accounts. They tried to monetize the proejct's users. Github makes money from businesses wanting private repositories. * Reputation is fragile Sourceforge's plummet serves a cautionary tale. * Sourceforge projects were hosted as sub-domains (e.g. http://project-name.sourceforge.net) -- so while projects could move away from Sourceforge, Sourceforge remained in control of their old site. Github on the other hand allows you to host your repository on your *own* domain [4]. So when you on from Github, your domain can move too in a way that is largely transparent to the community. If you want to be defensive, you should host github on your own domain. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8206903/google-code-is-closing-down-github... [2] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2929732/open-source-software/sourceforge-co... [3] https://www.wiredtree.com/blog/could-github-eventually-suffer-the-same-fate-... [4] https://help.github.com/articles/about-custom-domains-for-github-pages-sites... cheers -ben
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:26 PM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-12-17 17:08 GMT-03:00 Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil@inria.fr>:
On 17/12/2015 20:46, Peter Uhnák wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to prevent this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario?
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
Google code was really small compared with Github.
GitHub is monumental. It's to source management what Gmail is to email.
you never know what might happen in the future (trust a divorced man)
You get half the code? (the part that needs refactoring probably)
ROTFL
_,,,^..^,,,_ thanks, Eliot
Google has several projects that they put serious effort and resources, the rest is just either abandonware or with very low activity. Google code was on such example. Half baked, limited, ugly and unchanged for years. I never understood why anyone would choose to host his project on google code. Sourceforge on the other hand was a really great site to host your project, actively developed etc I think the reason why they lost the #1 place is that they were a bit messy design wise and github is much simpler to use. Also most people migrated to git so they did not care about svn support and many of the features that Sourceforge offers. Suicide is to kill yourself and Sourceforge is far from dead, as a matter of fact is still a very popular destination for freeware and open source. And to return back to the original topic of the thread lets say you nuke Github from orbit right now. What you going to lose. issues / bug reports ? big deal people will report those bugs again in your future web host wiki ? Seriously why use Github wiki, its very limited and most github projects dont or do so in a very limited extend website ? Again github hosted website tend to be super simple comments on commits or discussions around design decisions ? sure that is something really valuable but still can live without Git is local hosted version control system. As long you have an updated repo which will be the case anyway if you are an active developer you lost nothing that would really hinder the progress of your project. The repo is already in your hard drive. And there are solutions out there to backup Github data , since as I already said the Github API gives you access to all its data and much more. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:29 AM Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Google is king of abandonware , they have closed down half of their software projects, Google Code was just the tip of the iceberg . The other half is close to be abandoned or at least heavily outdated. Moreover google code was crappy anyway, its close down went unnoticed.
Github is nowhere anything like Google and its insult to even compare the two.
This is an interesting comparison. Google have experimented in many different directions away from their core business of search, that end up coming to an end. Indeed if you look at the reason googlecode was shut down, google says: "when it started Google Code when project hosting options were limited, but since launch in 2006, it's seen a "wide variety of better project hosting services" such as GitHub and Bitbucket rise to the forefront. ... Google itself has transferred nearly a thousand of its own open-source projects to the popular coding repository GitHub." [1]
A service shutting down sometime should be considered, but its a different scenario that the one asked -- of new corporate overlords extorting money from users. Probably the worst example of this is Sourceforge. Once the darling on the open source community, Sourceforge have committed reputational suicide [2] taking over projects that moved elsewhere, and then bundling Adware with their installers. [3] digs into the possibility the same could happen to Github.
Nothing is certain, but at least considering whether Github might do something similar: * AFAIAA Sourceforge never had paid developer accounts. They tried to monetize the proejct's users. Github makes money from businesses wanting private repositories. * Reputation is fragile Sourceforge's plummet serves a cautionary tale. * Sourceforge projects were hosted as sub-domains (e.g. http://project-name.sourceforge.net) -- so while projects could move away from Sourceforge, Sourceforge remained in control of their old site. Github on the other hand allows you to host your repository on your *own* domain [4]. So when you on from Github, your domain can move too in a way that is largely transparent to the community. If you want to be defensive, you should host github on your own domain.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8206903/google-code-is-closing-down-github... [2] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2929732/open-source-software/sourceforge-co... [3] https://www.wiredtree.com/blog/could-github-eventually-suffer-the-same-fate-... [4] https://help.github.com/articles/about-custom-domains-for-github-pages-sites...
cheers -ben
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:26 PM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-12-17 17:08 GMT-03:00 Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil@inria.fr
:
On 17/12/2015 20:46, Peter Uhnák wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So my concern is whether github is a safe long-term bet. Specifically what is there to prevent some third party from buying github, or of github going public and the board taking the decision, or github on its own, deciding to charge for hosting, keeping the data hostage to extract payment? What safeguards are in place to
prevent
this? I'm not interested in "this will never happen" arguments. I'm interested in hard data please.
GitHub explicitly reserves the right to shut down without notice, however considering they have ~10M users and ~30M repositories (ranging from small one-person projects, over programming languages, to governmental programs), do you really think it is a real scenario?
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
Google code was really small compared with Github.
GitHub is monumental. It's to source management what Gmail is to email.
you never know what might happen in the future (trust a divorced man)
You get half the code? (the part that needs refactoring probably)
ROTFL
_,,,^..^,,,_ thanks, Eliot
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
And all you needed was to click on a button and magically it was on github. But this is very different scenario to what the worry is about. When GitHub one day closes GoogleCode style, then there is nothing to worry about, because there will be time to move to something better. The worry is when it is sudden without time. Peter
Git is a DVCS. Github happens to be hosting repos, but it is just a remote that one pushes to. You can have multiple remotes and push to them. So, a project can have a couple remotes to push/pull to/from. e.g. I have a couple things going on now where one company uses github private repos and another is on bitbucket. No issue adding both remotes and synching both repos. One can also have its own Gitlab, http://gogs.io, or whatever git hosting provider or your own git daemon ( https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-Git-Daemon). The main thing is then the issues list and PR flow which is not a Git thing per se. So, two things here: - convince to use git (which is IMHO a no-brainer vs SVN) - convince to use github (which is a good proposal, but bitbucket has nice advantages too) The greatest advantage is that everyone having cloned the repo has the full history (provided one does a fetch --all for getting all branches). So, it would be close to impossible to lose the code even if providers go down. For command line users, check out tig (http://jonas.nitro.dk/tig/manual.html) which is really a great ncurses based git client. Can see about everything very easily. For some git power, check also: git mergetool git difftool which allow do diff/merge branches without trouble. Phil Phil On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
well, googlecode closed didn't it? and it was not a small affair either
And all you needed was to click on a button and magically it was on github.
But this is very different scenario to what the worry is about. When GitHub one day closes GoogleCode style, then there is nothing to worry about, because there will be time to move to something better. The worry is when it is sudden without time.
Peter
participants (8)
-
Ben Coman -
Dimitris Chloupis -
Eliot Miranda -
Esteban A. Maringolo -
Holger Freyther -
Nicolas Anquetil -
Peter Uhnák -
phil＠highoctane.be