3 ms·

I feel like this is unfortunate. Github has a giant user-based, and using github would be a great way to reduce the friction of having first-time contributors

I feel like this is unfortunate. Github has a giant user-based, and using github would be a great way to reduce the friction of having first-time contributors submit a pull-request. In my case, if KiCAD were hosted on github, I would have already contributed by now. I think its a shame that more of these projects don't adopt a strategy of "let's try github, and if they screw us over, then we'll migrate to a platform with more freedom".

mic47 8y ago
I think it's shame that lot of projects do. Why? 1.) Compared to Phabricator (which I used for almost last 4 years), github is really behind for code review (I didn't use gitlab, so can't compare). There is lot of missing features: I can't comment on selection of lines, see diff of subset of commits, do stacked pull request (one PR depends on another PR), view of open pull request is chaotic Effect is that it's way harder to send small PR for review, unless you work on lot of unrelated things and multiplex. 2.) Github dominance is causing everybody using git, and stiffs competition in source control tools. For example, I find mercurial much better than git: it has similar set of features, but it's easier to use, my day-to-day chores I do with single command, and I am much less likely to screw up my repo.
- rimliu 8y ago
  Funnily, I ditched hg the moment it screwed my repo. But even then I was pretty sure git would win, and not for PR reasons.
Rapzid 8y ago
Github has dabbled a bit too much in politics in recent years TBH. It doesn't surprise me that projects like GNOME would take pause at that, among the other reasons people are listing.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  When my company was evaluating open source cms/hosting solutions, Github was quicky removed from the list of candidates for this very reason. Their criteria for removing software projects was deemed too unstable to depend upon, and the company is too small to garner the same respect from github as bigger companies.
- CrypticOne274 8y ago
  I can’t agree enough.
alxlaz 8y ago
> In my case, if KiCAD were hosted on github, I would have already contributed by now. I suppose it's useful never to underestimate the role of culture and tradition when it comes to these things. For the Gnome project, it's probably very important not to rely on a closed-source system, and their developers have a long history of using very different tools anyway. The barrier doesn't work that way for everyone, either. I "grew" up (programming-wise) before Github. It seems way less cumbersome for me to make changes and submit a patch via email or whatever than to go through Github's fork the repo - do the changes - make a pull request - sync the repos dance. (Edit: this is especially true for early contributions, or for late and complex contributions, where the review process is a little more, you know, long-winded. Github's review tool is quite atrocious.) > I think its a shame that more of these projects don't adopt a strategy of "let's try github, and if they screw us over, then we'll migrate to a platform with more freedom". That's a really risky thing to try. First, moving the entire infrastructure to Gitlab has been a pretty massive undertaking for Gnome -- and Gnome is one of those open source projects that really has resources. Most projects with Gnome's size and history can maybe afford to do that once every seven years, when there's a relatively quiet time and whatnot. Second, you never really know how that "screw us over" thing is gonna happen. What if the way it happens is that, among other things, when they close your repos or whatever, they cut access to the API for your project? How are you going to migrate to a platform with more freedom then? Copy-paste every bug report ever? IMHO, 10-15 years from now we'll be really happy that Gnome really understood that "there's no cloud, it's just someone else's computer" thing :-).

mic47 8y ago

I think it's shame that lot of projects do. Why? 1.) Compared to Phabricator (which I used for almost last 4 years), github is really behind for code review (I didn't use gitlab, so can't compare). There is lot of missing features: I can't comment on selection of lines, see diff of subset of commits, do stacked pull request (one PR depends on another PR), view of open pull request is chaotic Effect is that it's way harder to send small PR for review, unless you work on lot of unrelated things and multiplex. 2.) Github dominance is causing everybody using git, and stiffs competition in source control tools. For example, I find mercurial much better than git: it has similar set of features, but it's easier to use, my day-to-day chores I do with single command, and I am much less likely to screw up my repo.

rimliu 8y ago
Funnily, I ditched hg the moment it screwed my repo. But even then I was pretty sure git would win, and not for PR reasons.

Rapzid 8y ago

Github has dabbled a bit too much in politics in recent years TBH. It doesn't surprise me that projects like GNOME would take pause at that, among the other reasons people are listing.

jake_the_third 8y ago
When my company was evaluating open source cms/hosting solutions, Github was quicky removed from the list of candidates for this very reason. Their criteria for removing software projects was deemed too unstable to depend upon, and the company is too small to garner the same respect from github as bigger companies.
CrypticOne274 8y ago
I can’t agree enough.

alxlaz 8y ago

> In my case, if KiCAD were hosted on github, I would have already contributed by now. I suppose it's useful never to underestimate the role of culture and tradition when it comes to these things. For the Gnome project, it's probably very important not to rely on a closed-source system, and their developers have a long history of using very different tools anyway. The barrier doesn't work that way for everyone, either. I "grew" up (programming-wise) before Github. It seems way less cumbersome for me to make changes and submit a patch via email or whatever than to go through Github's fork the repo - do the changes - make a pull request - sync the repos dance. (Edit: this is especially true for early contributions, or for late and complex contributions, where the review process is a little more, you know, long-winded. Github's review tool is quite atrocious.) > I think its a shame that more of these projects don't adopt a strategy of "let's try github, and if they screw us over, then we'll migrate to a platform with more freedom". That's a really risky thing to try. First, moving the entire infrastructure to Gitlab has been a pretty massive undertaking for Gnome -- and Gnome is one of those open source projects that really has resources. Most projects with Gnome's size and history can maybe afford to do that once every seven years, when there's a relatively quiet time and whatnot. Second, you never really know how that "screw us over" thing is gonna happen. What if the way it happens is that, among other things, when they close your repos or whatever, they cut access to the API for your project? How are you going to migrate to a platform with more freedom then? Copy-paste every bug report ever? IMHO, 10-15 years from now we'll be really happy that Gnome really understood that "there's no cloud, it's just someone else's computer" thing :-).