4 ms·
Sure. I think what he's saying is, even if the built-in version of Dependabot is good, it's really hard for another startup to come along and make the the next
by xd1936 7y ago
Sure. I think what he's saying is, even if the built-in version of Dependabot is good, it's really hard for another startup to come along and make the the next Dependabot 2, that does things even better. Without that threat of competition, Github's implementation may stagnate. I haven't seen any indication of stagnation from the Github team yet though.
- Kalium 7y agoI understand and agree that that is what parent is saying. I think it might be worth considering that Dependabot outdid a Github feature to do the exact same thing. Dependabot beat out the in-house Github implementation by being better and having better features. Indeed, Dependabot integrated with Github better! I understand the concern. There's a very real fear that having Dependabot in-house at Github might mean that something even better never develops. It's very possible that this might come true this time! But I am skeptical, given that it clearly failed to occur previously. I'm not seeing why this time around will be different, but I'm sure that's just a lack of vision on my part. Plus, well, if Dependabot keeps away all would-be competitors by being so good at what it does that nobody can compete... I consider that a win. My main concern and primary goal is more secure software, not more startups rooted in an ecosystem around Github.
- jen20 7y agoI would argue that GitHub has appeared substantially less stagnant _since_ the acquisition than the year or so beforehand. (Edited to correct a typo)
- agnokapathetic 7y agoYes. They were about to have their enterprise lunch eaten by GitLab
- drusepth 7y agoWouldn't that stagnation be exactly what prompts another startup to come along and make the next Dependabot 2?