5 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoThat'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 agoYou'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 agoThis 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.