14 ms·

OpenJDK Migrates to GitHub

267 points by dcgudeman 6y ago

pyuser583 6y ago
Lol. I was looking for the openjdk source code. Was confused about current status. Good to know.
saagarjha 6y ago
Will they be moving contributions to GitHub pull requests as well?
- The_rationalist 6y ago
  Yes
AbacusAvenger 6y ago
How many applications are left that still use Mercurial? I can only think of two big ones, the JDK and Mozilla's entire code base. Are there still others around? Seems like everyone's moving to Git these days, which is great considering I never did get the hang of Mercurial.
- justaguy88 6y ago
  It's a bit odd that there's such a monoculture around git though, where are the competitors?
  - creato 6y ago
    Should we care about a monoculture around a local used/hosted, open source tool? I might worry about a monoculture around a hosted service like github, but not git itself.
    - _ZeD_ 6y ago
      I'm sorry because both the ui and the underlying model of Mercurial is factually Better than git
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > is factually Better than git It obviously isn't 'factually' better - that's a matter of opinion not fact. And in my experience, both Mercurial's model and UI is very over-complicated with far too many concepts. Git has a smaller number of simpler primitives and primitive operations. I think that makes the underlying model of Git better and that's why I prefer it.
    - riffraff 6y ago
      Yes, we should. Remember when GCC had no open source competition? Things have been much better since clang came out. Or consider openssl since libressl came out. Yes it's possible that codebase improvements would have happened anyways, but having open source competition is great.
  - nestorD 6y ago
    Pijul is an interesting young alternative: https://pijul.org/ https://pijul.org/
  - the_duke 6y ago
    I would love a competitor with significant benefits. Git has plenty of warts. As it stands, it's just a lot easier to use Git everywhere though, just so developers don't have to learn a new tool. https://pijul.org/ https://pijul.org/ is the only somewhat somewhat interesting alternative I know about, but it's implementation is in alpha territory, and development seems dead.
    - pmeunier 6y ago
      As one of the authors, I can tell you that Pijul development has never been as alive as today. It isn't public yet for a variety of reasons, but will be very soon.
      - the_duke 6y ago
        That's great to hear!
      - OvidiusCicero 6y ago
        May I suggest that you write something like that on the webpage? It looks really disappointing with the last activity from 2019 at the moment
- Bahamut 6y ago
  Facebook?
  - rukshn 6y ago
    Facebook is still using mercurial last time I heard
  - jesboat 6y ago
    It's quite a bit different from stock hg at this point. The server is custom, and decent chunks of the CLI have been rewritten in rust. https://github.com/facebookexperimental/eden https://github.com/facebookexperimental/eden Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124095
- snug 6y ago
  NGINX still uses Mercurial
- ies7 6y ago
  Google and Facebook use mercurial over git internally.
  - dcgudeman 6y ago
    Google doesn't use mercurial they use perforce.
    - surajrmal 6y ago
      Google uses a proprietary backend with the primary front end written to look like a clone of the perforce tool p4. The newer frontend that's getting investment is mercurial based. There also exists unofficial/deprecated support for a git frontend.
  - loosescrews 6y ago
    I believe Dropbox uses Mercurial as well.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Not huge but libsdl was one of the ones I ran into recently. (I’ve seen a couple of Subversions too, since I’m visiting a lot of open source projects these days.)
- ksec 6y ago
  > I never did get the hang of Mercurial What is it specific that you dont get ? I actually thought hg is conceptually simpler. And hg to me has always felt BSD like, Git was Linux like. Unfortunately everything with BSD failed to gain any popularity. Including BSD license in itself. ( Yes I know Netflix are using it in their Edge Appliance )
  - wokwokwok 6y ago
    bookmarks and branches. Coming from git to hg, it was a step back in time to branches that can’t ever actually be deleted and bookmarks are... not obvious. Can you actually create two bookmarks on your current commit and then move forward on just one? who knows? I never figured it out.
- moreati 6y ago
  PyPy uses Mercurial, hosted on a Gitlab fork https://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/contributing.html#source-control https://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/contributing.html#source-cont...
rvz 6y ago
> Host all OpenJDK Git repositories at https://github.com/openjdk/ https://github.com/openjdk/. Good choice from moving to Git [0], very risky move on moving to GitHub. If this was just a mirror then that would be fine but it is moving from Mecurial to Git and then the whole project to GitHub. They should do what Xfce, GNOME and KDE have done and they have self-hosted their own repositories on Gitlab, which GitHub requires the Enterprise Edition for self-hosting. Not really an option, unless you want to pay for this. The risks outweigh the pros for GitHub as I have said before [1] and will say it again. Self-hosting over 'centralising everything' on GitHub. [0] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/357 https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/357 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23849565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23849565
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  I do think it's an important concern, even though I absolutely love Github. Most importantly though, `git` is not centralised, and no service like Github, no matter what it does, can ever stop the decentralisation, roll-your-own-ability, or forkability of open-source software. So probably it's OK for now for the majority of the community to use MS's platform Github, because other options exist and it's not hard to move to them or create new ones at any time. Github doesn't own our brains, nor can it do any harm to the powerful GNU GPL.
  - rapnie 6y ago
    While you are right, there is more than just the code. In general one should be wary for lock-in when sculpting their development processes around the features that GH offers, i.e. the Issue tracker, Projects & Teams, Discussions and not to forget GH Actions. And besides that there is FOMO for many projects to leave GH due to its popularity. Does your contributor base move with you to another platform? Is it as easy to find new contributors, or even to find the project itself?
    - IAmEveryone 6y ago
      ..which is why I am somewhat convinced that Github single-handedly increased participation in OSS by orders of magnitude. I never figured out the processes to submit patches in the dark time of sourceforge and mailing lists. Since Github standardized this, I frequently contribute.
burtonator 6y ago
YEARS ago at a conference I got really mad at Gosling and told him that Java was going to be Open Source one way or another and that they might as well Open Source it now and maybe SUN wouldn't implode. Well... I was right.
- suyash 6y ago
  Open JDK has been there since 2007, large part of Java tools and libraries are under open source license, JCP has been advocating open development since 1998 so I call this BS.
- bluejekyll 6y ago
  How would this have prevented Sun from “imploding”? Wasn’t Sun’s main issue that they were selling extremely expensive hardware and a proprietary OS that were completely overtaken by x86 and Linux? I remember getting to play with the very expensive hardware they’d handout to startups in the late 90’s and early 00’s. It was good hardware, but it wasn’t so much better than the slightly more buggy and much less costly Linux systems at the time.
  - smart_jackal 6y ago
    Sun's main issue was that they failed to capitalize on all the wonderful tech they had including Java, VirtualBox and Openoffice/StarOffice. Even after open sourcing all of them, they could have kept the company running by marketing to enterprises and offering support. If they had learned these skills from companies like RH/SUSE/IBM, then Java would have been in much better hands today.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      First of all, Oracle and IBM have been part of Java world since the early days with their own Java implementations, and Oracle even jumped on Sun's boat regarding those Java based thin client workstations that were all the rage around 1998. Secondly, with Sun you would never had gotten AOT, because they saw it as something that 3rd party vendors like Oracle and IBM should care about, they were fully into "JIT or bust", and MaximeVM would have followed the same path as SPOTs, instead of turning into GraalVM.
m0zg 6y ago
Java development is now hosted by Microsoft. :-)
- kasperni 6y ago
  They've starting contributing to the development recently as well [1]. [1] https://adtmag.com/articles/2019/11/06/microsoft-openjdk.aspx https://adtmag.com/articles/2019/11/06/microsoft-openjdk.asp...
- foepys 6y ago
  I don't exactly know why you are being downvoted, you are absolutely right, albeit a bit snarky. Microsoft is currently embracing open source and people wonder why that is. Their history around FOSS is worrying and some question if it's part of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Plus it's very ironic that Microsoft is now the hoster of Java's source code after their failed proprietary Java implementation (J++) which eventually lead to the creation of C# after being sued by Sun.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    J++ did not fail, it was the first language designed by Anders after joining Microsoft and had a sane FFI, which became P/Invoke and their Forms framework was the basis of Windows Forms. So yeah, they failed to win the court process if that is what you mean. Also something that many seem to forget, .NET was also released with J#. Another fun fact, JNI is hard by design as means to promote WORA, and Project Panama that is supposed to replace it has several ideas similar to P/Invoke. Finally many that celebrate Sun's victory over Microsoft regarding J++, are too eager to pick Android Java side nowadays.
  - notRobot 6y ago
    A minor point: while MS has been embracing OSS, they've never been in support of software freedoms ("libre") because it's fundamentally incompatible with their business models. Yes, most OSS software is also libre, but MS doesn't care about that.
    - 6y ago
giomasce 6y ago
It bothers me that they repeatedly write about a migration "from Mercurial to GitHub", rather than "from Mercurial to Git". It seems to imply that GitHub hosting is the only way to run Git. It's perfectly fine to say that they are moving to GitHub hosting, but not to put it on the same level as Mercurial: Mercurial and Git are applications/protocols, while GitHub is a hosting service. You should compare application with application and hosting service with hosting service.
- suyash 6y ago
  Good point, people have largely forgotten the distinction between Git and GitHub.
  - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
    Very true and the search engines are to be blamed as well. Recently, I was searching for a Git - fork project (i.e. a project forked from git itself) which allowed separate machine based accounts for Git branches. It was quite famous, I had used it about 4 years back and I don't remember its name now. Now, this is the worst case scenario for the search engines - • 'git fork project' would bring numerous github forked projects. • 'git original source' would bring the mirror of git in github, but then again there are hundreds of fork. After, lot of time spent on this in vain, I gave up. UPDATE: While writing this comment I remembered the USP of that project was 'Branch specific permissions', so I gave a fresh attempt at finding it and I did via SO! It's Gitolite[1]. [1]https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite
    - throwaway8941 6y ago
      Have you tried adding -github to your search queries?
      - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
        Yep, I tried Github as part of the query. Anyways, even without 'GitHub' almost all front page results are from there and that's one of the point I'm trying to make.
tannhaeuser 6y ago
The problem with consolidating everything on GitHub is that, to me, you're selling your user's and contributor's clicks. Moreover, GitHub blocks indie search crawlers, and as such is just a content silo. Now F/OSS software licenses, at least of the reciprocal kind, make very much a political statement by their license choice, willingly or not, that is questioned by using GitHub (or any other gateway cashing in on user engagement data) as project host. The really ugly and depressing thing is that F/OSS projects seek networking effects on GitHub, turning a super-powerful and easy dSCM into a centralized hub in a heartbeat; to me, they kindof devalue their own (massive) work by trading it for only the attention value it gets on GitHub, and contributing to the oligopolistic web. Hosting GPL software on GitHub is like sticking fingers in your ears, dogmatically adhering to a licensing taxonomy of yesteryear, while refusing to face today's problems. I'm not sure what incentive to go to GitHub is there for a project with a defacto closed group of developers that's been in the works for years or decades already; it's not like the project seeks indie contributors anyway. Might be better to support https://codeberg.org/ https://codeberg.org/ .
- znclp 6y ago
  I agree with all of the above. - The incentive for a mature project with some rogue corporate developers that are no longer idealistic is this: 1) Moving a project to GitHub ingratiates them with their puppet masters and generates a lot of billable hours. 2) Once on GitHub, these "developers" keep complicating the commit procedures so that even doc fixes look like a lot of work. More billable hours. 3) GitHub makes it easy to generate green squares for review actions. Merging a PR that another idealistic person put a lot of work in just requires a click. Half of the credit goes to the core developer. It looks as if the core "developer" is doing a lot of work. 4) If you apply the above methods, you will have green GitHub statistics and increase your market value. pg has written about similar tactics in an essay where he explains why developers love Java. It is sad that open source is now "embraced" to such an extent that the same tactics apply there. The idealistic developers are not political enough to prevent the bureaucrats from taking over. Also, they do not have time because they are actually writing code.
- asddubs 6y ago
  oh wow, this is just a straight up github clone. I actually kinda like that, it's an interface pretty much everyone is used to, and it's good too. Maybe they should change the color scheme or something a little though, so you don't forget you're not just on github, cause if I scrolled down and reopened the tab, I would definitely think I was on github
sharken 6y ago
Having worked with multiple Mercurial repositories managed by a custom tool which is now also being converted to Git, I can confirm that the smart choice for a new developer is to choose Git. It’s no longer “Choose Git or Mercurial?” that is the topic, but instead it is which Git branching model to choose.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Why is that? Hg still seems nicer to use in my experience
  - sharken 6y ago
    For the usual VCS operations such as adding files, committing and pushing i’d say they are quite similar. If you’re doing really complicated merges (which you should avoid anyway), then yes Mercurial is better in my opinion. But given the prevalence of Git, e.g. it is much easier to find a new dev with Git experience and also much easier to Google a Git problem, it seems only natural that more and more Mercurial repos will be converted to Git.
The_rationalist 6y ago
I wonder how much this will increase contributions and as such how much the JVM will improve :)

267 points by dcgudeman 6y ago

pyuser583 6y ago

Lol. I was looking for the openjdk source code. Was confused about current status. Good to know.

saagarjha 6y ago

Will they be moving contributions to GitHub pull requests as well?

The_rationalist 6y ago
Yes

AbacusAvenger 6y ago

How many applications are left that still use Mercurial? I can only think of two big ones, the JDK and Mozilla's entire code base. Are there still others around? Seems like everyone's moving to Git these days, which is great considering I never did get the hang of Mercurial.

justaguy88 6y ago
It's a bit odd that there's such a monoculture around git though, where are the competitors?
- creato 6y ago
  Should we care about a monoculture around a local used/hosted, open source tool? I might worry about a monoculture around a hosted service like github, but not git itself.
  - _ZeD_ 6y ago
    I'm sorry because both the ui and the underlying model of Mercurial is factually Better than git
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > is factually Better than git It obviously isn't 'factually' better - that's a matter of opinion not fact. And in my experience, both Mercurial's model and UI is very over-complicated with far too many concepts. Git has a smaller number of simpler primitives and primitive operations. I think that makes the underlying model of Git better and that's why I prefer it.
  - riffraff 6y ago
    Yes, we should. Remember when GCC had no open source competition? Things have been much better since clang came out. Or consider openssl since libressl came out. Yes it's possible that codebase improvements would have happened anyways, but having open source competition is great.
- nestorD 6y ago
  Pijul is an interesting young alternative: https://pijul.org/ https://pijul.org/
- the_duke 6y ago
  I would love a competitor with significant benefits. Git has plenty of warts. As it stands, it's just a lot easier to use Git everywhere though, just so developers don't have to learn a new tool. https://pijul.org/ https://pijul.org/ is the only somewhat somewhat interesting alternative I know about, but it's implementation is in alpha territory, and development seems dead.
  - pmeunier 6y ago
    As one of the authors, I can tell you that Pijul development has never been as alive as today. It isn't public yet for a variety of reasons, but will be very soon.
    - the_duke 6y ago
      That's great to hear!
    - OvidiusCicero 6y ago
      May I suggest that you write something like that on the webpage? It looks really disappointing with the last activity from 2019 at the moment
Bahamut 6y ago
Facebook?
- rukshn 6y ago
  Facebook is still using mercurial last time I heard
- jesboat 6y ago
  It's quite a bit different from stock hg at this point. The server is custom, and decent chunks of the CLI have been rewritten in rust. https://github.com/facebookexperimental/eden https://github.com/facebookexperimental/eden Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124095
snug 6y ago
NGINX still uses Mercurial
ies7 6y ago
Google and Facebook use mercurial over git internally.
- dcgudeman 6y ago
  Google doesn't use mercurial they use perforce.
  - surajrmal 6y ago
    Google uses a proprietary backend with the primary front end written to look like a clone of the perforce tool p4. The newer frontend that's getting investment is mercurial based. There also exists unofficial/deprecated support for a git frontend.
- loosescrews 6y ago
  I believe Dropbox uses Mercurial as well.
saagarjha 6y ago
Not huge but libsdl was one of the ones I ran into recently. (I’ve seen a couple of Subversions too, since I’m visiting a lot of open source projects these days.)
ksec 6y ago
> I never did get the hang of Mercurial What is it specific that you dont get ? I actually thought hg is conceptually simpler. And hg to me has always felt BSD like, Git was Linux like. Unfortunately everything with BSD failed to gain any popularity. Including BSD license in itself. ( Yes I know Netflix are using it in their Edge Appliance )
- wokwokwok 6y ago
  bookmarks and branches. Coming from git to hg, it was a step back in time to branches that can’t ever actually be deleted and bookmarks are... not obvious. Can you actually create two bookmarks on your current commit and then move forward on just one? who knows? I never figured it out.
moreati 6y ago
PyPy uses Mercurial, hosted on a Gitlab fork https://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/contributing.html#source-control https://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/contributing.html#source-cont...

rvz 6y ago

> Host all OpenJDK Git repositories at https://github.com/openjdk/ https://github.com/openjdk/. Good choice from moving to Git [0], very risky move on moving to GitHub. If this was just a mirror then that would be fine but it is moving from Mecurial to Git and then the whole project to GitHub. They should do what Xfce, GNOME and KDE have done and they have self-hosted their own repositories on Gitlab, which GitHub requires the Enterprise Edition for self-hosting. Not really an option, unless you want to pay for this. The risks outweigh the pros for GitHub as I have said before [1] and will say it again. Self-hosting over 'centralising everything' on GitHub. [0] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/357 https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/357 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23849565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23849565

mindfulhack 6y ago
I do think it's an important concern, even though I absolutely love Github. Most importantly though, `git` is not centralised, and no service like Github, no matter what it does, can ever stop the decentralisation, roll-your-own-ability, or forkability of open-source software. So probably it's OK for now for the majority of the community to use MS's platform Github, because other options exist and it's not hard to move to them or create new ones at any time. Github doesn't own our brains, nor can it do any harm to the powerful GNU GPL.
- rapnie 6y ago
  While you are right, there is more than just the code. In general one should be wary for lock-in when sculpting their development processes around the features that GH offers, i.e. the Issue tracker, Projects & Teams, Discussions and not to forget GH Actions. And besides that there is FOMO for many projects to leave GH due to its popularity. Does your contributor base move with you to another platform? Is it as easy to find new contributors, or even to find the project itself?
  - IAmEveryone 6y ago
    ..which is why I am somewhat convinced that Github single-handedly increased participation in OSS by orders of magnitude. I never figured out the processes to submit patches in the dark time of sourceforge and mailing lists. Since Github standardized this, I frequently contribute.

burtonator 6y ago

YEARS ago at a conference I got really mad at Gosling and told him that Java was going to be Open Source one way or another and that they might as well Open Source it now and maybe SUN wouldn't implode. Well... I was right.

suyash 6y ago
Open JDK has been there since 2007, large part of Java tools and libraries are under open source license, JCP has been advocating open development since 1998 so I call this BS.
bluejekyll 6y ago
How would this have prevented Sun from “imploding”? Wasn’t Sun’s main issue that they were selling extremely expensive hardware and a proprietary OS that were completely overtaken by x86 and Linux? I remember getting to play with the very expensive hardware they’d handout to startups in the late 90’s and early 00’s. It was good hardware, but it wasn’t so much better than the slightly more buggy and much less costly Linux systems at the time.
- smart_jackal 6y ago
  Sun's main issue was that they failed to capitalize on all the wonderful tech they had including Java, VirtualBox and Openoffice/StarOffice. Even after open sourcing all of them, they could have kept the company running by marketing to enterprises and offering support. If they had learned these skills from companies like RH/SUSE/IBM, then Java would have been in much better hands today.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    First of all, Oracle and IBM have been part of Java world since the early days with their own Java implementations, and Oracle even jumped on Sun's boat regarding those Java based thin client workstations that were all the rage around 1998. Secondly, with Sun you would never had gotten AOT, because they saw it as something that 3rd party vendors like Oracle and IBM should care about, they were fully into "JIT or bust", and MaximeVM would have followed the same path as SPOTs, instead of turning into GraalVM.

m0zg 6y ago

Java development is now hosted by Microsoft. :-)

kasperni 6y ago
They've starting contributing to the development recently as well [1]. [1] https://adtmag.com/articles/2019/11/06/microsoft-openjdk.aspx https://adtmag.com/articles/2019/11/06/microsoft-openjdk.asp...
foepys 6y ago
I don't exactly know why you are being downvoted, you are absolutely right, albeit a bit snarky. Microsoft is currently embracing open source and people wonder why that is. Their history around FOSS is worrying and some question if it's part of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Plus it's very ironic that Microsoft is now the hoster of Java's source code after their failed proprietary Java implementation (J++) which eventually lead to the creation of C# after being sued by Sun.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  J++ did not fail, it was the first language designed by Anders after joining Microsoft and had a sane FFI, which became P/Invoke and their Forms framework was the basis of Windows Forms. So yeah, they failed to win the court process if that is what you mean. Also something that many seem to forget, .NET was also released with J#. Another fun fact, JNI is hard by design as means to promote WORA, and Project Panama that is supposed to replace it has several ideas similar to P/Invoke. Finally many that celebrate Sun's victory over Microsoft regarding J++, are too eager to pick Android Java side nowadays.
- notRobot 6y ago
  A minor point: while MS has been embracing OSS, they've never been in support of software freedoms ("libre") because it's fundamentally incompatible with their business models. Yes, most OSS software is also libre, but MS doesn't care about that.
  - 6y ago

giomasce 6y ago

It bothers me that they repeatedly write about a migration "from Mercurial to GitHub", rather than "from Mercurial to Git". It seems to imply that GitHub hosting is the only way to run Git. It's perfectly fine to say that they are moving to GitHub hosting, but not to put it on the same level as Mercurial: Mercurial and Git are applications/protocols, while GitHub is a hosting service. You should compare application with application and hosting service with hosting service.

suyash 6y ago
Good point, people have largely forgotten the distinction between Git and GitHub.
- Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  Very true and the search engines are to be blamed as well. Recently, I was searching for a Git - fork project (i.e. a project forked from git itself) which allowed separate machine based accounts for Git branches. It was quite famous, I had used it about 4 years back and I don't remember its name now. Now, this is the worst case scenario for the search engines - • 'git fork project' would bring numerous github forked projects. • 'git original source' would bring the mirror of git in github, but then again there are hundreds of fork. After, lot of time spent on this in vain, I gave up. UPDATE: While writing this comment I remembered the USP of that project was 'Branch specific permissions', so I gave a fresh attempt at finding it and I did via SO! It's Gitolite[1]. [1]https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite
  - throwaway8941 6y ago
    Have you tried adding -github to your search queries?
    - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
      Yep, I tried Github as part of the query. Anyways, even without 'GitHub' almost all front page results are from there and that's one of the point I'm trying to make.

tannhaeuser 6y ago

The problem with consolidating everything on GitHub is that, to me, you're selling your user's and contributor's clicks. Moreover, GitHub blocks indie search crawlers, and as such is just a content silo. Now F/OSS software licenses, at least of the reciprocal kind, make very much a political statement by their license choice, willingly or not, that is questioned by using GitHub (or any other gateway cashing in on user engagement data) as project host. The really ugly and depressing thing is that F/OSS projects seek networking effects on GitHub, turning a super-powerful and easy dSCM into a centralized hub in a heartbeat; to me, they kindof devalue their own (massive) work by trading it for only the attention value it gets on GitHub, and contributing to the oligopolistic web. Hosting GPL software on GitHub is like sticking fingers in your ears, dogmatically adhering to a licensing taxonomy of yesteryear, while refusing to face today's problems. I'm not sure what incentive to go to GitHub is there for a project with a defacto closed group of developers that's been in the works for years or decades already; it's not like the project seeks indie contributors anyway. Might be better to support https://codeberg.org/ https://codeberg.org/ .

znclp 6y ago
I agree with all of the above. - The incentive for a mature project with some rogue corporate developers that are no longer idealistic is this: 1) Moving a project to GitHub ingratiates them with their puppet masters and generates a lot of billable hours. 2) Once on GitHub, these "developers" keep complicating the commit procedures so that even doc fixes look like a lot of work. More billable hours. 3) GitHub makes it easy to generate green squares for review actions. Merging a PR that another idealistic person put a lot of work in just requires a click. Half of the credit goes to the core developer. It looks as if the core "developer" is doing a lot of work. 4) If you apply the above methods, you will have green GitHub statistics and increase your market value. pg has written about similar tactics in an essay where he explains why developers love Java. It is sad that open source is now "embraced" to such an extent that the same tactics apply there. The idealistic developers are not political enough to prevent the bureaucrats from taking over. Also, they do not have time because they are actually writing code.
asddubs 6y ago
oh wow, this is just a straight up github clone. I actually kinda like that, it's an interface pretty much everyone is used to, and it's good too. Maybe they should change the color scheme or something a little though, so you don't forget you're not just on github, cause if I scrolled down and reopened the tab, I would definitely think I was on github

sharken 6y ago

Having worked with multiple Mercurial repositories managed by a custom tool which is now also being converted to Git, I can confirm that the smart choice for a new developer is to choose Git. It’s no longer “Choose Git or Mercurial?” that is the topic, but instead it is which Git branching model to choose.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Why is that? Hg still seems nicer to use in my experience
- sharken 6y ago
  For the usual VCS operations such as adding files, committing and pushing i’d say they are quite similar. If you’re doing really complicated merges (which you should avoid anyway), then yes Mercurial is better in my opinion. But given the prevalence of Git, e.g. it is much easier to find a new dev with Git experience and also much easier to Google a Git problem, it seems only natural that more and more Mercurial repos will be converted to Git.

The_rationalist 6y ago

I wonder how much this will increase contributions and as such how much the JVM will improve :)