3 ms·

GitHub After Microsoft

4 points by jhabdas 8y ago

Please share your developer experiences. Here are mine: Cons: - 2 years of GPG commits uncertified - Lost ability to see traffic in some repos - Found out many forks are not searchable What have your experiences been so far?

dmlittle 8y ago
Would any of the 3 points you mentioned have been different had MSFT not acquired GitHub?
- jhabdas 8y ago
  Funny you should ask. I went back in time in my head and ran some super scientific Occam's Razor recursion algos and it turns out leadership was planning on it they just went ready to receive any more"letters". That said there is a pro to all of this. I meant to put it in my original but, whoops, hit enter. Pro: Discovery Gitea hosted for $2.50 a month on a VPS (or free on a raspberry pi) shows just how God awful fast git can really be.
  - dmlittle 8y ago
    > ran some super scientific Occam's Razor recursion algos There's probably some bias trying to justify your previous 3 points. You can host your own Gitea but now you have the operational burden of maintaining your own Git server. For most businesses it makes more sense to go with a hosted solution and dedicate resources to creating business value. There are a lot of things I wish GitHub did differently but nothing really has changed since the announcement that MSFT was buying GitHub. If the announcement had never been made, no one would have thought anything had changed. Until recently (2 years or so) they were pretty slow to roll features but this changed once GitLab started seriously competing with them.
    - jhabdas 8y ago
      No justification necessary. These are merely observations I made and have presented here. Unpopular as they may be I feel it's important to start having these discussions early and in a threaded manner. It's nice that GitHub has some competition now. After looking at GitLab I didn't see a whole lot to love personally. Seemed over-engineered in the CI/CD department and basic features like pull mirroring aren't available in their CE version.
neilsimp1 8y ago
Microsoft does not own GitHub yet, so all of these points are for GitHub before Microsoft.
- jhabdas 8y ago
  Pretty sure they've been in bed for a while. Just needed to tie the knot before beginning the cleanse.
  - detaro 8y ago
    You seriously attribute forks not being searchable normally (which has always been the case) to some long-standing planning with Microsoft, all the while Github was also talking to Google and other buyers? Looks to me more like you went looking for bad things cause you wanted bad things to have happened.
    - jhabdas 8y ago
      I'm aware some (but not all) forks were not searchable before. Always considered it a bug in their software. In this case, however, I'm referring to is search by repo name. Would you expect forks to appear by repo name in search?

4 points by jhabdas 8y ago

dmlittle 8y ago

Would any of the 3 points you mentioned have been different had MSFT not acquired GitHub?

jhabdas 8y ago
Funny you should ask. I went back in time in my head and ran some super scientific Occam's Razor recursion algos and it turns out leadership was planning on it they just went ready to receive any more"letters". That said there is a pro to all of this. I meant to put it in my original but, whoops, hit enter. Pro: Discovery Gitea hosted for $2.50 a month on a VPS (or free on a raspberry pi) shows just how God awful fast git can really be.
- dmlittle 8y ago
  > ran some super scientific Occam's Razor recursion algos There's probably some bias trying to justify your previous 3 points. You can host your own Gitea but now you have the operational burden of maintaining your own Git server. For most businesses it makes more sense to go with a hosted solution and dedicate resources to creating business value. There are a lot of things I wish GitHub did differently but nothing really has changed since the announcement that MSFT was buying GitHub. If the announcement had never been made, no one would have thought anything had changed. Until recently (2 years or so) they were pretty slow to roll features but this changed once GitLab started seriously competing with them.
  - jhabdas 8y ago
    No justification necessary. These are merely observations I made and have presented here. Unpopular as they may be I feel it's important to start having these discussions early and in a threaded manner. It's nice that GitHub has some competition now. After looking at GitLab I didn't see a whole lot to love personally. Seemed over-engineered in the CI/CD department and basic features like pull mirroring aren't available in their CE version.

neilsimp1 8y ago

Microsoft does not own GitHub yet, so all of these points are for GitHub before Microsoft.

jhabdas 8y ago
Pretty sure they've been in bed for a while. Just needed to tie the knot before beginning the cleanse.
- detaro 8y ago
  You seriously attribute forks not being searchable normally (which has always been the case) to some long-standing planning with Microsoft, all the while Github was also talking to Google and other buyers? Looks to me more like you went looking for bad things cause you wanted bad things to have happened.
  - jhabdas 8y ago
    I'm aware some (but not all) forks were not searchable before. Always considered it a bug in their software. In this case, however, I'm referring to is search by repo name. Would you expect forks to appear by repo name in search?