11 ms·

> this taught me not to rely on Github as only storage for code If you didn't already know this, then... good lesson to learn. Just like backups: don't rely o

> this taught me not to rely on Github as only storage for code If you didn't already know this, then... good lesson to learn. Just like backups: don't rely on a single source of anything.

burner5692 9y ago
Yet, most users are content with GitHub being the sole owner of their issues, pull requests, code review, wiki...
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago
  This is typical. Most businesses don't duplicate their workflow stuff to a parallel system because database backups are sufficient. GitHub, even with relatively recent issues and downtime, has better infrastructure and skilled personnel than most companies hosting their own instances of these services on some reclaimed box.
  - piracykills 9y ago
    Even if they have great infrastructure, this article is evidence that they can still take you down at any given moment if they so much as feel like it. You need those database backups.
    - hashkb 9y ago
      Or you can pay them and not violate their terms. Outrage over GitHub admin actions is loud, but for the 99.999% of cases everything is fine.
      - burner5692 9y ago
        With 26 million users, five nines is not very reassuring.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
        > not violate their terms I haven't checked GitHub specifically, but most of those terms include, "and we can ditch you any time for any reason, maybe with 30 days notice if you're paying"
        piracykills 9y ago
        Not to mention it's also common to include "we can change the terms at any time" - and of course, there's also the fact that this issue in specific has nothing to do with a ToS violation, but with permissions on the parent repository, by relying on them with no backups you're not only subject to their staff's whim, but to the whim of any bugs or "features" in their code. If you want to take advantage of their infrastructure, that's fair, I understand, but at the very least, run some tooling to backup issues, pull requests, wiki pages, etc on a regular basis.
- ken 9y ago
  GitHub wikis are just git repos themselves, and I clone mine. It's easier to edit them locally, too. As for issues, I've suggested to GitHub that they make them available via git, and they said simply "I have passed your suggestion on to the team to consider adding the ability to clone Issues". I don't think they realize how nerve-wracking it is to put any data at all in GitHub issues. Even their recommended backup software is out of date and doesn't back up Issues completely.
paulgb 9y ago
Has anyone created a service that you auth in through GitHub and it backs up all your repos to S3 or Dropbox or something? I'd pay a few bucks for something like that. Edit: I found backhub.co. Unfortunately their pricing is per-repo and my usage model involves lots of tiny repos.
- yaxu 9y ago
  If you're writing research software you can backup to zenodo (i.e. CERN) for free.
- rplnt 9y ago
  Set multiple urls for one remote using `--push` https://git-scm.com/docs/git-remote#git-remote-emset-urlem https://git-scm.com/docs/git-remote#git-remote-emset-urlem and you are about done.
  - synctext 9y ago
    This is only a partial solution, right? Services such as Backhub.co also backup your issues: https://backhub.co/features/backup-github-issues/ https://backhub.co/features/backup-github-issues/ (we have 1000+ closed issues in our project, nice to preserve)
    - rplnt 9y ago
      Right. The service is certainly expected to do more. Was mostly addressing the issue of mirroring the data to dropbox. But even then my "solution" only saves whatever you do locally. So if you merge PRs through github, it wouldn't get mirrored.
- izacus 9y ago
  If you have self-deployed Gogs (which is a smallish OSS GitHub clone) you can easily set it to mirror other repositories periodically. Very useful for backups. Also simple to self-deploy since it's essentially a single service written in Go.
abhishekjha 9y ago
I am beginner so bear with me. I learnt git 2 years back and always end up using the same set of commands and never anything new which lets me work very smoothly on projects. I read a lot of blogs to understand how git works and how useful git reflog is. I was/am often confused about what is offered solely by git and github as these two are two different things. Is fork/PR/Issues native to git? I still don't have an answer.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  Git is a decentralized source control system, also known as a DVCS (distributed version control system). "GitHub" is essentially just "git" on some someone else's computer with a bunch of extra features.
  - abhishekjha 9y ago
    >"GitHub" is essentially just "git" on some someone else's computer with a bunch of extra features. The comment below you answered my question : PR/Issues are native to github.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "PR/Issues are native to github", there are other choices for code review for self-hosted git: https://www.gerritcodereview.com/ https://www.gerritcodereview.com/ Incidentally Gerrit predates github.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        "GitHub PRs/issues are native to GitHub". If you switch to Gerrit, the code commits themselves follow, but the PRs and issues don't. They're only on GitHub.
      - 0x0 9y ago
        I wouldn't point to gerrit as an example of self-hosting git. Gerrit's "patchsets" and "change-id"s concepts, as well as the weirdo remote push refs, really turns the git experience into something... very different. It's very far from both how "normal" git commits and tracking branches workflow work, and from github/gitlab/bitbucket's pull-request/merge-request style.
sli 9y ago
I say this every chance I get, but Github can and will hold your code ransom if your premium account lapses while you still have private repos. They do not give you the option to set those repos to public, they require you to pay money to regain access. Maybe you can have them switch the repos to public if you go through their support, but Github doesn't offer that in their ransom note, and that would be an unacceptable solution, anyway. Whether or not this is a risk to a given developer (or their company) is irrelevant to me, because they still have policy that allows them to hold code hostage for ransom, and that should make Github a complete non-starter when deciding on an SCM host.
- anc84 9y ago
  How can they hold your local clone of the code hostage?
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    A sane option is to deny GIT access while still allowing the primary account to download a copy of the repo for a set amount of days. Instead they play "data roach motel" and hold your data hostage. Very uncool.
    - Stefstefstef 9y ago
      7 bucks a month is hardly ransom. it would be better than automatically making private repo's public when you stop paying
      - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        > 7 bucks a month is hardly ransom. You do not know other peoples' situations. And strictly speaking, demanding money to access your data is ransom. > it would be better than automatically making private repo's public when you stop paying False equivalency. I already said that "disabling repo and allowing primary user to download" was acceptable. I said nothing about private->public. This whole situation only reaffirms my distrust in all cloud services. EDIT: Seriously, -1 ? The user's data is sacrosanct. You disable most functionality, but you never, I repeat never delete data or make it irretrievable within a envelope of time for recovery. The only exception to that is if the user explicitly requests a permanent deletion - then you do so after appropriate warnings.
pjmlp 9y ago
As usual, cloud services are other people's computers, but it seems devs now keep forgetting about it.

> this taught me not to rely on Github as only storage for code If you didn't already know this, then... good lesson to learn. Just like backups: don't rely on a single source of anything.

burner5692 9y ago

Yet, most users are content with GitHub being the sole owner of their issues, pull requests, code review, wiki...

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
This is typical. Most businesses don't duplicate their workflow stuff to a parallel system because database backups are sufficient. GitHub, even with relatively recent issues and downtime, has better infrastructure and skilled personnel than most companies hosting their own instances of these services on some reclaimed box.
- piracykills 9y ago
  Even if they have great infrastructure, this article is evidence that they can still take you down at any given moment if they so much as feel like it. You need those database backups.
  - hashkb 9y ago
    Or you can pay them and not violate their terms. Outrage over GitHub admin actions is loud, but for the 99.999% of cases everything is fine.
    - burner5692 9y ago
      With 26 million users, five nines is not very reassuring.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      > not violate their terms I haven't checked GitHub specifically, but most of those terms include, "and we can ditch you any time for any reason, maybe with 30 days notice if you're paying"
      - piracykills 9y ago
        Not to mention it's also common to include "we can change the terms at any time" - and of course, there's also the fact that this issue in specific has nothing to do with a ToS violation, but with permissions on the parent repository, by relying on them with no backups you're not only subject to their staff's whim, but to the whim of any bugs or "features" in their code. If you want to take advantage of their infrastructure, that's fair, I understand, but at the very least, run some tooling to backup issues, pull requests, wiki pages, etc on a regular basis.
ken 9y ago
GitHub wikis are just git repos themselves, and I clone mine. It's easier to edit them locally, too. As for issues, I've suggested to GitHub that they make them available via git, and they said simply "I have passed your suggestion on to the team to consider adding the ability to clone Issues". I don't think they realize how nerve-wracking it is to put any data at all in GitHub issues. Even their recommended backup software is out of date and doesn't back up Issues completely.

paulgb 9y ago

Has anyone created a service that you auth in through GitHub and it backs up all your repos to S3 or Dropbox or something? I'd pay a few bucks for something like that. Edit: I found backhub.co. Unfortunately their pricing is per-repo and my usage model involves lots of tiny repos.

yaxu 9y ago
If you're writing research software you can backup to zenodo (i.e. CERN) for free.
rplnt 9y ago
Set multiple urls for one remote using `--push` https://git-scm.com/docs/git-remote#git-remote-emset-urlem https://git-scm.com/docs/git-remote#git-remote-emset-urlem and you are about done.
- synctext 9y ago
  This is only a partial solution, right? Services such as Backhub.co also backup your issues: https://backhub.co/features/backup-github-issues/ https://backhub.co/features/backup-github-issues/ (we have 1000+ closed issues in our project, nice to preserve)
  - rplnt 9y ago
    Right. The service is certainly expected to do more. Was mostly addressing the issue of mirroring the data to dropbox. But even then my "solution" only saves whatever you do locally. So if you merge PRs through github, it wouldn't get mirrored.
izacus 9y ago
If you have self-deployed Gogs (which is a smallish OSS GitHub clone) you can easily set it to mirror other repositories periodically. Very useful for backups. Also simple to self-deploy since it's essentially a single service written in Go.

abhishekjha 9y ago

I am beginner so bear with me. I learnt git 2 years back and always end up using the same set of commands and never anything new which lets me work very smoothly on projects. I read a lot of blogs to understand how git works and how useful git reflog is. I was/am often confused about what is offered solely by git and github as these two are two different things. Is fork/PR/Issues native to git? I still don't have an answer.

mfoy_ 9y ago
Git is a decentralized source control system, also known as a DVCS (distributed version control system). "GitHub" is essentially just "git" on some someone else's computer with a bunch of extra features.
- abhishekjha 9y ago
  >"GitHub" is essentially just "git" on some someone else's computer with a bunch of extra features. The comment below you answered my question : PR/Issues are native to github.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "PR/Issues are native to github", there are other choices for code review for self-hosted git: https://www.gerritcodereview.com/ https://www.gerritcodereview.com/ Incidentally Gerrit predates github.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      "GitHub PRs/issues are native to GitHub". If you switch to Gerrit, the code commits themselves follow, but the PRs and issues don't. They're only on GitHub.
    - 0x0 9y ago
      I wouldn't point to gerrit as an example of self-hosting git. Gerrit's "patchsets" and "change-id"s concepts, as well as the weirdo remote push refs, really turns the git experience into something... very different. It's very far from both how "normal" git commits and tracking branches workflow work, and from github/gitlab/bitbucket's pull-request/merge-request style.

sli 9y ago

I say this every chance I get, but Github can and will hold your code ransom if your premium account lapses while you still have private repos. They do not give you the option to set those repos to public, they require you to pay money to regain access. Maybe you can have them switch the repos to public if you go through their support, but Github doesn't offer that in their ransom note, and that would be an unacceptable solution, anyway. Whether or not this is a risk to a given developer (or their company) is irrelevant to me, because they still have policy that allows them to hold code hostage for ransom, and that should make Github a complete non-starter when deciding on an SCM host.

anc84 9y ago
How can they hold your local clone of the code hostage?
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  A sane option is to deny GIT access while still allowing the primary account to download a copy of the repo for a set amount of days. Instead they play "data roach motel" and hold your data hostage. Very uncool.
  - Stefstefstef 9y ago
    7 bucks a month is hardly ransom. it would be better than automatically making private repo's public when you stop paying
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      > 7 bucks a month is hardly ransom. You do not know other peoples' situations. And strictly speaking, demanding money to access your data is ransom. > it would be better than automatically making private repo's public when you stop paying False equivalency. I already said that "disabling repo and allowing primary user to download" was acceptable. I said nothing about private->public. This whole situation only reaffirms my distrust in all cloud services. EDIT: Seriously, -1 ? The user's data is sacrosanct. You disable most functionality, but you never, I repeat never delete data or make it irretrievable within a envelope of time for recovery. The only exception to that is if the user explicitly requests a permanent deletion - then you do so after appropriate warnings.

pjmlp 9y ago

As usual, cloud services are other people's computers, but it seems devs now keep forgetting about it.