5 ms·

ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself. All I see is they have CI issues coupled with dumbest anti AI policy that is impossible fo

ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself. All I see is they have CI issues coupled with dumbest anti AI policy that is impossible for them to enforce. Giving up your donations and losing half your community doesn't seem like an intelligent move when all you had to do is update your CI.

inferiorhuman 10mo ago
ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself. … all you had to do is update your CI Updating your CI only addresses one of the issues you raised, and you forgot about the front-end complaints which also wouldn't be addressed by "updating your CI".
- bastardoperator 10mo ago
  It's all faux outrage, they didn't give a shit about ICE or MSFT until they could use it as a rage bait prop. Imagine being a slave to any SCM UI when cli tools and desktop clients have existed for ages not to mention integration into nearly every IDE. Also, what they're describing "random" workflows is classic ci build machine went offline and came back later. Regardless, best of luck to them, hopefully they don't run into any more "monkeys", that would be terrible for them.
ricardobeat 10mo ago
That's kind of what they are doing - the move is 'updating their CI' to Codeberg Actions which is presumably more reliable. All the git workflows stay the same.
pwdisswordfishs 10mo ago
> ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself Codeberg is also a Git-based project host. It doesn't even support other repo types. Why would you be expecting the latter? If a project announcement or article headline says someone/something is quitting or leaving GitHub, it makes a lot of sense to assume that their issue is with GitHub (and in this case, it would be an assumption they'd be right about).
- bastardoperator 10mo ago
  I was pointing out how ironic it was for them to move from git SaaS to git SaaS while having no issues with git on the git SaaS they're moving away from. Make sense?
  - pwdisswordfishs 10mo ago
    That's not ironic. If they had trouble with Git on GitHub, and then left GitHub for Codeberg, where they also have to use Git, then that would be very strange. Instead, they had trouble with GitHub, so they left GitHub, which makes perfect sense.
    - bastardoperator 10mo ago
      You're conflating GitHub the platform with GitHub the bundle of services. CI is optional, swappable, not unique to GitHub. Sponsorship infrastructure and discoverability are not. The complaints target the optional layer. The migration sacrifices the sticky layer. That's backwards, and ironic, with the intention of being performative. It's almost like selling your car because a tire lost some air, lol.
      - pwdisswordfishs 10mo ago
        This is an insane comment right from the thesis.
  - aloha2436 10mo ago
    > Make sense? Only if they use it purely as a git SaaS which they don't, it's also an issue tracker and discussion forum. Even PRs aren't strictly a git concept. Given they use all those things and given they're against having AI features built into them, it does not seem ironic to me at all.

inferiorhuman 10mo ago

ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself. … all you had to do is update your CI Updating your CI only addresses one of the issues you raised, and you forgot about the front-end complaints which also wouldn't be addressed by "updating your CI".

bastardoperator 10mo ago
It's all faux outrage, they didn't give a shit about ICE or MSFT until they could use it as a rage bait prop. Imagine being a slave to any SCM UI when cli tools and desktop clients have existed for ages not to mention integration into nearly every IDE. Also, what they're describing "random" workflows is classic ci build machine went offline and came back later. Regardless, best of luck to them, hopefully they don't run into any more "monkeys", that would be terrible for them.

ricardobeat 10mo ago

That's kind of what they are doing - the move is 'updating their CI' to Codeberg Actions which is presumably more reliable. All the git workflows stay the same.

pwdisswordfishs 10mo ago

> ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself Codeberg is also a Git-based project host. It doesn't even support other repo types. Why would you be expecting the latter? If a project announcement or article headline says someone/something is quitting or leaving GitHub, it makes a lot of sense to assume that their issue is with GitHub (and in this case, it would be an assumption they'd be right about).

bastardoperator 10mo ago
I was pointing out how ironic it was for them to move from git SaaS to git SaaS while having no issues with git on the git SaaS they're moving away from. Make sense?
- pwdisswordfishs 10mo ago
  That's not ironic. If they had trouble with Git on GitHub, and then left GitHub for Codeberg, where they also have to use Git, then that would be very strange. Instead, they had trouble with GitHub, so they left GitHub, which makes perfect sense.
  - bastardoperator 10mo ago
    You're conflating GitHub the platform with GitHub the bundle of services. CI is optional, swappable, not unique to GitHub. Sponsorship infrastructure and discoverability are not. The complaints target the optional layer. The migration sacrifices the sticky layer. That's backwards, and ironic, with the intention of being performative. It's almost like selling your car because a tire lost some air, lol.
    - pwdisswordfishs 10mo ago
      This is an insane comment right from the thesis.
- aloha2436 10mo ago
  > Make sense? Only if they use it purely as a git SaaS which they don't, it's also an issue tracker and discussion forum. Even PRs aren't strictly a git concept. Given they use all those things and given they're against having AI features built into them, it does not seem ironic to me at all.