4 ms·
> A maintainer who "doesn't care" if their infrastructure is proprietary is not doing a good job. This isn't to mention also the issues regarding code ownershi
by bArray 4y ago
> A maintainer who "doesn't care" if their infrastructure is proprietary is not doing a good job.
This isn't to mention also the issues regarding code ownership, where GitHub now trains their Co-Pilot AI on code under any license.
> Note that GitLab is not really the answer to this problem. It's open core, subservient to its investors, and pulls a lot of stupid shit like this.
Even if GitLab pulled out on their payed-tiers now, it's too late. This has been coming for years with the paid version of GitLab features vs the free version, which always ran behind on functionality.
We are currently considering our options to move away from GitLab. Ideally we look for tickets, merge/pull requests, CI and the ability to allow the public to contribute.
@ddevault We have been looking at SourceHut at an alternative. Specifically some questions for you:
1. Will you have a non-email merge/patch system for SourceHut in the near future [1]? The problem isn't so much for our team, but to encourage external people to help with our project who are used to the likes of GitHub and GitLab.
2. With regards to pricing for SourceHut, how will the pricing look in the future [2]? We have a small project that could pay per person/group, but would struggle to pay what GitLab are asking [3]. GitHib pricing is better, but obviously your code then becomes the product.
Great work in any case, I really enjoy seeing your blog updates.
[1] https://drewdevault.com/2022/07/25/Code-review-with-aerc.html https://drewdevault.com/2022/07/25/Code-review-with-aerc.htm...
[2] https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/
[3] https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/
- pca006132 4y agoRegarding copilot training issue, I wonder if they can just train on any open-source projects that they can access, e.g. projects in SourceHut. I remember their argument is that their training is considered fair use, legal/moral questions aside, doesn't it means that they can also justify using projects hosted on alternative platforms for training?
- saurik 4y agoIf your code is open source and matters at all, people put it on GitHub anyway. I refused to self-host any of my stuff on GitHub, but there are a ton of forks and mirrors of old versions there anyway (and then people get confused being unable to find the real copy because there seriously are asshats out there searching for code repositories exclusively on GitHub instead of Google).
- Volundr 4y agoWhile I am all for hosting elsewhere (and do so myself) I will admit to being one of these asshats. Lots of projects have semi-common names and Google/DDG will often surface irrelevant results. I often find it easier to find projects by just searching GitHub instead.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoi am training my brain on the back of the hapless and poor authors like lee child and j.k rowling that i got off of piratebay. why do those "pesky rights" holders release their dogs after me?
- ddevault 4y ago1: We are working on a web tool which uses emails under the hood but is otherwise quite similar to pull/merge requests. We have already rolled out the contributor side of the process, which you can see demoed here: https://spacepub.space/w/no6jnhHeUrt2E5ST168tRL https://spacepub.space/w/no6jnhHeUrt2E5ST168tRL 2: TBD, but we will consult with the community before making any final calls. There will be at least 90 days notice before any pricing changes once the long-term pricing is finalized. It definitely won't be anything near GitLab's extortionate pricing.
- bArray 4y agoAppreciated, thanks.