3 ms·
The monoculture already exists, and it was always going to be formed. The one good thing is that git makes it relatively easy to move, so that if Github suffer
by Tuna-Fish 3y ago
The monoculture already exists, and it was always going to be formed.
The one good thing is that git makes it relatively easy to move, so that if Github suffers excessive enshittification, something else can steal their lunch.
- kibwen 3y agoGit makes it relatively easy to move the code itself and its commit history, but not the other things people use Github for: issues, automation, CI... The lock-in is there.
- zelphirkalt 3y agoMaybe this is making a good argument for managing these things as commits in a directory in the git tree?
- jbaber 3y agoThere are a few attempts to do this (git-bug is the most recent I remember). I desperately want one to get traction. git-bug even has a way to bridge your issues to github/gitlab/etc. trackers.
- LightFog 3y agoMSFT gobbling up your code and selling it back to you isn’t enshittified enough for you?
- mathstuf 3y agoYou can move the code, sure. It's the infrastructure that is hard to relocate (issues, pulls). If one uses references like `#123` in the history, you need to do something to keep them "alive" on a migration. GitLab itself has an interesting solution where instead of short references, full URLs are used so that they work in any context (including locally). These URLs are then rendered as `#123` or whatever depending on the location of the render.
- fsckboy 3y ago>git makes it relatively easy to move, so that if Github suffers excessive enshittification... what if the enshittification is making it hard to move?