2 ms·

I've seen this argument before. The problem is that it doesn't consider the nature of git—every clone is a backup copy of the entire repository. Even if github

I've seen this argument before. The problem is that it doesn't consider the nature of git—every clone is a backup copy of the entire repository. Even if github lost every single repo tomorrow, only a small percentage of projects would actually be lost forever. This is also the reason that GitHub is fundamentally different from source forge. If GitHub were to turn evil tomorrow, everyone could just upload their project to gitlab or bitbucket and carry on.

foreigner 11y ago
However the pull request comments, issues, etc are not versioned in the Git repo, so those could be lost.
uxcn 11y ago
Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. Submitting patches on mailing lists or controlling access to using SSH will always be workable. The benefit of Github is the directory and collaborative aspect. It's much easier for people to contribute to projects now, and a lot of projects might not have grown as quickly without it. The central directory also makes it a lot easier for other people to find stuff which probably also plays a role. I doubt Github will go down the same path as Sourceforge.
- __david__ 11y ago
  > Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. You might not lose the latest code, but you'd lose the history and the commit comments. Those are significant. With github you'd lose stuff like issues, but I find those not nearly as useful as the commit history.
  - uxcn 11y ago
    Git's definitely an improvement over Subversion (CVS, etc...). Without the commit history there's a lot you couldn't do (e.g. bisect stuff), but things would still be workable. Distributed models are almost always more robust than centralized ones though. As I understand it, the main benefits are still risks though (e.g. central directory). The code itself isn't really at risk, especially with signed commits.

foreigner 11y ago

However the pull request comments, issues, etc are not versioned in the Git repo, so those could be lost.

uxcn 11y ago

Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. Submitting patches on mailing lists or controlling access to using SSH will always be workable. The benefit of Github is the directory and collaborative aspect. It's much easier for people to contribute to projects now, and a lot of projects might not have grown as quickly without it. The central directory also makes it a lot easier for other people to find stuff which probably also plays a role. I doubt Github will go down the same path as Sourceforge.

__david__ 11y ago
> Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. You might not lose the latest code, but you'd lose the history and the commit comments. Those are significant. With github you'd lose stuff like issues, but I find those not nearly as useful as the commit history.
- uxcn 11y ago
  Git's definitely an improvement over Subversion (CVS, etc...). Without the commit history there's a lot you couldn't do (e.g. bisect stuff), but things would still be workable. Distributed models are almost always more robust than centralized ones though. As I understand it, the main benefits are still risks though (e.g. central directory). The code itself isn't really at risk, especially with signed commits.