Let's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Option - Edward Loveall
-
Codeberg has a git "ci" possibility (woodpecker?). What is missing?
wrote last edited by [email protected]People. Most people are still on GitHub and don't see things on Codeberg / GitLab nor are they willing to create an account. It's a classic case of the network effect.
-
Codeberg has a git "ci" possibility (woodpecker?). What is missing?
Not all actions run on it.
Also, GitHub infrastructure is free and really performance, that's why I use it even if I have my own for server.
Also, discoverability. For the projects that I want to show to the world, GitHub is best, since it's most likely people see it there.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Gitea is awesome and fairly easy to get up and running.
-
Not all actions run on it.
Also, GitHub infrastructure is free and really performance, that's why I use it even if I have my own for server.
Also, discoverability. For the projects that I want to show to the world, GitHub is best, since it's most likely people see it there.
Free like in Microsoft free...
For the discoverability I totally understand, but it's a behemoth, it should be split up IMO.
On a side note, I have never had any performance problems with Codeberg, but my projects aren't that big.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't get the first part on pull requests, you can't just say:
I’d like to see what other tools people can offer. Perhaps a tool that promotes ensemble working to share the problem solving and context with a larger group.
and then also say:
I do not know what these tools are or what they look like, and I’m not saying Pull Requests are all bad either. But I don’t believe that we’ve found the one-and-only way to work together on a code base.
You have to make a valid proposal to say how the workflow could be "improved" (if it really can be), otherwise we're talking about nothingness, the draft that is written in the middle is very vague IMO, what I'm really missing is what are the specific problems in the PR process, you say:
Pull Requests are a blunt instrument that puts gate keeping front-and-center
It's true and I don't see how things can work otherwise, the point made in the linked article (emphasis mine):
If I am messing about with something I have low confidence in, I will be very explicit in how I ask for help. Preferably at a much earlier stage than in opening a PR. But if I have high confidence in my code change, I would love for you to take a look, but I don’t expect you to spend too much time figuring it all out.
Confidence is completely subjective, some small change that you are confident will touch that place and only that, might well affect other parts of the code that you don't know about, and who knows about it? The people that have worked on that code. I've worked a lot on a codebase where the main developer stepped down from his role to do managerial tasks and he doesn't perform any code review at all mainly because the company doesn't value the review process, so there's no time for it, but also, even if there was, he can't remember anything he's written.
So it's not rare that I touch some code, approve it myself and a user notices that something broke once it has hit production, I was confident in the change I made and I was wrong, I couldn't have known that because I didn't have the full knowledge of the codebase.
When I'm not confident, I usually ask and get a little feedback, it usually helps, but it's not exhaustive, so some issues might crop up anyways, even still, I might be working on something I created and be confident, but my mind was hazy at the time of making the changes, so I make mistakes anyway.
That's why I believe that a strict review process is always beneficial, even for supposed "stupid" changes, because you're not editing a document, you're editing code that will run, a mistake somewhere has effects elsewhere and wrong code has no place hitting production if it can reasonably be prevented, those "small hotfixes" that are urgently needed to fix that broken thing in production will often lead to some other issue somewhere because you were pressured to think fast and get out a dirty solution which will likely cause some problem you hadn't foreseen in your supposed confidence further down the line.
What do we have on the other side, collaborative editing? A live feed of what the others are doing so anyone in the team can step in to help? That's spreading the attention of the experienced developers that I imagine would be involved in this collaboration too thin, they would have to waste time thinking what the mental process of the other developer is, even in an interrupted stage, where everything is up in the air, that is huge cognitive load, it makes way more sense to put that load on the single developer that has to refine their work until it's presentable, then, if they run into some problem midway, they will usually ask questions on logic and architecture, more so than code, and even if it is about code, their current codebase state can be pulled from their repository object of the PR to try out -
Free like in Microsoft free...
For the discoverability I totally understand, but it's a behemoth, it should be split up IMO.
On a side note, I have never had any performance problems with Codeberg, but my projects aren't that big.
Selfhosted ci works well, but the GitHub ci is so fast it's not even funny. At least compared to my selfhosted stuff which is arguably cheap
-
People. Most people are still on GitHub and don't see things on Codeberg / GitLab nor are they willing to create an account. It's a classic case of the network effect.
Exactly. I'm looking forward to forgejo federation.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Github will never be the only options there's always alternatives.
-
Jujutsu is a Git frontend, from what I understand, much like there's tons of Git GUIs. So, you interact with it in a different way, but you still push to a Git repository and others can interact with your code by using Git.
I guess, it somewhat lessens the grip of Git, because they can hook different backend services (e.g. Subversion, Mercurial, Fossil) into this frontend, and from what I understand, they plan to develop an own backend eventually. But yeah, for now, the communication standard is still Git.
It's not a Git frontend per se, it just uses Git as a storage layer (Google's internal backend doesn't use Git and behaves more like a commit cloud)
-
Github will never be the only options there's always alternatives.
But none that compete properly with it. I'm not a good programmer but nearly every open sourced project I've used/accessed was on Guthub
-
This post did not contain any content.
Forgejo and Codeberg are great (I use both), but only for backups, at least unless you're already well known. For small developers, GitHub is pretty much the only platform that might let others discover your project.
-
But none that compete properly with it. I'm not a good programmer but nearly every open sourced project I've used/accessed was on Guthub
wrote last edited by [email protected]It was a shit show before GitHub. I used to email code. I used to have to find random IRC rooms, follow random contributor guides, or beg for access. I remember one project required me to download some torrent bullshit just so I can submit my patch.
As a contributor, I can't go back to creating multiple accounts and trying to figure out how the hell I give you code.
I don't care if GitHub is the defacto for open-source projects, as long as there are competitors and mirrors.
-
It was a shit show before GitHub. I used to email code. I used to have to find random IRC rooms, follow random contributor guides, or beg for access. I remember one project required me to download some torrent bullshit just so I can submit my patch.
As a contributor, I can't go back to creating multiple accounts and trying to figure out how the hell I give you code.
I don't care if GitHub is the defacto for open-source projects, as long as there are competitors and mirrors.
I understand and agree. My concern is just the gap between it and the competitors.
-
Selfhosted ci works well, but the GitHub ci is so fast it's not even funny. At least compared to my selfhosted stuff which is arguably cheap
Fair enough!
Is the CI free?
-
But none that compete properly with it. I'm not a good programmer but nearly every open sourced project I've used/accessed was on Guthub
This is mostly due to inertia and, to an extent, SEO.
Most people use github because it's all they know and its name is almost synonymous with git hosting. Publishing elsewhere leads to people asking you why you're not on github, how else can we contribute, etc. Moreover, github seems to score better on Google SEO than other platforms.
