www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft

reply Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
(which is today).

Some articles about the topic:

https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors

What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?

Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D 
projects - dub registry supported them for a while now.

IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the 
GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and 
programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too 
much which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies. 
This means that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use 
GitHub just to contribute to other projects.
Jun 03
next sibling parent reply Suliman <evermind live.ru> writes:
Git was never my favorite VCS. So I hope that this step will open 
door for project like pijul.org
github.com is only site, not religious. So if it will be closed 
people will move/create to its analogs.
Jun 03
parent Cym13 <cpicard openmailbox.org> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 03:57:37 UTC, Suliman wrote:
 Git was never my favorite VCS. So I hope that this step will 
 open door for project like pijul.org
 github.com is only site, not religious. So if it will be closed 
 people will move/create to its analogs.
Git has nothing to do with github, it's just a technology they happen to use but they have no privilege on it. It won't change a thing on that side.
Jun 03
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 03:51:15 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
 (which is today).

 Some articles about the topic:

 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors

 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
Well, MS already contributes big time to many open-source projects, including Git. I do not see immanent problem with them buying it.
 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D 
 projects - dub registry supported them for a while now.
Both are fine, though Gitlab seems more sexy now.
 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind 
 the GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and 
 programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too 
 much which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies.
Would you trust Google? Me, I’m not. In fact if we were to place trust, comercial IT companies would be pretty down on my list of “trust” in any case.
 This means that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use 
 GitHub just to contribute to other projects.
Jun 03
parent reply Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:26:25 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 03:51:15 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
 (which is today).

 Some articles about the topic:

 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors

 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
Well, MS already contributes big time to many open-source projects, including Git. I do not see immanent problem with them buying it.
I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: forcing users to use Microsoft accounts, advertising own products, changing search to Bing (that's pretty bad one, no idea how I came up with it) and more and more. I can agree though that last 5 years or so Microsoft is doing well with open-source projects. Question is: will it carry on with open-source?
 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D 
 projects - dub registry supported them for a while now.
Both are fine, though Gitlab seems more sexy now.
Indeed it is. GitHub is stuck in 2010-s and the UI of GitLab is beautiful and smooth.
 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind 
 the GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money 
 and programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them 
 too much which is the right thing to do when dealing with 
 companies.
Would you trust Google? Me, I’m not. In fact if we were to place trust, comercial IT companies would be pretty down on my list of “trust” in any case.
If you'd ask me a year or two ago - maybe, but now I have no idea what Google is doing and last bits of trust I had are gone.
Jun 03
next sibling parent reply Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: 
 forcing users to use Microsoft accounts, advertising own 
 products, changing search to Bing (that's pretty bad one, no 
 idea how I came up with it) and more and more.
Something that might be worth being concerned about is that Microsoft might be more strict in policing its online properties than GitHub, so watch out for them shutting down projects/repositories of politically charged subjects, or those e.g. based on reverse-engineered MS code.
Jun 04
parent Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 09:38:57 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: 
 forcing users to use Microsoft accounts, advertising own 
 products, changing search to Bing (that's pretty bad one, no 
 idea how I came up with it) and more and more.
Something that might be worth being concerned about is that Microsoft might be more strict in policing its online properties than GitHub, so watch out for them shutting down projects/repositories of politically charged subjects, or those e.g. based on reverse-engineered MS code.
GitHub removed repositories before when contents were illegal. That's an interesting question though: now there's nothing stopping MS from changing user agreement and removing repositories without any kind of legal lawsuit. Also, nothing stops MS from making it harder for other big companies like Google and Apple to support and host their projects on the GitHub.
Jun 04
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: 
 forcing users to use Microsoft accounts
That didn't happen to skype yet. MS recently tries to mend its reputation, though the past will linger for a while.
Jun 04
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Monday, June 04, 2018 14:51:24 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including:
 forcing users to use Microsoft accounts
That didn't happen to skype yet. MS recently tries to mend its reputation, though the past will linger for a while.
In many respects, they're better behaved than they used to be. They're biggest problems seem to have to do with what they're doing with Windows (e.g. tracking what you're doing and not letting you turn it off). It's certainly not desriable that they bought github, but it probably won't have any obvious effects for a while. The biggest concerns probably have to do with collecting data on users, and github was doutblessly doing that already. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 04
parent Guillaume Piolat <notthat email.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:08:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 In many respects, they're better behaved than they used to be. 
 They're biggest problems seem to have to do with what they're 
 doing with Windows (e.g. tracking what you're doing and not 
 letting you turn it off). It's certainly not desriable that 
 they bought github, but it probably won't have any obvious 
 effects for a while. The biggest concerns probably have to do 
 with collecting data on users, and github was doutblessly doing 
 that already.

 - Jonathan M Davis
At least in the EU we had a big GDPR Windows Update that let you disable every tracking. All in all an amazing law (for the user) that would make sense for regulators to import.
Jun 04
prev sibling next sibling parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 03:51:15 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
 (which is today).

 Some articles about the topic:

 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors

 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?

 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D 
 projects - dub registry supported them for a while now.

 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind 
 the GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and 
 programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too 
 much which is the right thing to do when dealing with 
 companies. This means that I will move my repositories 
 elsewhere and use GitHub just to contribute to other projects.
Looks like a done deal, will be announced tomorrow: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-03/microsoft-is-said-to-have-agreed-to-acquire-coding-site-github It all depends on how much support they pour into github, but I agree it's not a good sign.
Jun 03
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Monday, June 04, 2018 03:51:15 Anton Fediushin via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday
 (which is today).

 Some articles about the topic:

 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-ru
 mors

 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?

 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D
 projects - dub registry supported them for a while now.

 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the
 GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and
 programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too
 much which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies.
 This means that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use
 GitHub just to contribute to other projects.
It would increase the odds that I would put public repos on bitbucket (that's already where I put all of my private repos, since it's free there but not at github). But I don't know. The main reason to go with github is because it's the main place that folks go looking for open source projects, and anyone who finds you on github (be it through the official dlang projects or something else) will find your stuff on github that way but not the stuff that you have elsewhere. On some level, what you have on github serves as a resume in a way that it wouldn't with other sites (especially if folks are finding you online rather than you pointing to your repos in your actual resume). I can't say that I'll be happy if Microosft buys github (just like I wasn't happy when they bought linkedin), but I also can't say for sure that it will change what I do. A lot of that will depend on what Microsoft does and how it affects the open source community at large. The odds of my hosting stuff elsewhere definitely then go up, but I don't know what I'll do. This is bad news but likely not catastrophic. On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo hosting to become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere due to their concerns about Microsoft. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 03
parent reply Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:40:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo 
 hosting to become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere 
 due to their concerns about Microsoft.

 - Jonathan M Davis
Can't agree more: GitLab and Bitbucket deserve more attention. Speaking of which, there's huge spike [1] in project imports on GitLab. These are some great news for it, I hope it doesn't crash. [1] https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer?orgId=1
Jun 03
parent reply drug <drug2004 bk.ru> writes:
04.06.2018 09:02, Anton Fediushin пишет:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:40:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo hosting to 
 become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere due to their 
 concerns about Microsoft.

 - Jonathan M Davis
Can't agree more: GitLab and Bitbucket deserve more attention. Speaking of which, there's huge spike [1] in project imports on GitLab. These are some great news for it, I hope it doesn't crash. [1] https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer?orgId=1
Gitlab has a big (for me) advantage being self hosted standalone system I can use privately. Its free version has restrictions comparing to enterprise version but very usable. What about sexy modern design it's annoying (for me again) that this design changes frequently, it forces me almost every update to find where menus and buttons I used before placed now.
Jun 04
parent reply Paolo Invernizzi <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 07:53:13 UTC, drug wrote:
 04.06.2018 09:02, Anton Fediushin пишет:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:40:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo 
 hosting to become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere 
 due to their concerns about Microsoft.

 - Jonathan M Davis
Can't agree more: GitLab and Bitbucket deserve more attention. Speaking of which, there's huge spike [1] in project imports on GitLab. These are some great news for it, I hope it doesn't crash. [1] https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer?orgId=1
Gitlab has a big (for me) advantage being self hosted standalone system I can use privately. Its free version has restrictions comparing to enterprise version but very usable. What about sexy modern design it's annoying (for me again) that this design changes frequently, it forces me almost every update to find where menus and buttons I used before placed now.
No more restrictions for using GitLab for open source projects [1], both SaaS and Self-Hosted. It's really a big opportunity... [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-education-and-open-source/ /Paolo
Jun 09
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/09/2018 11:06 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
 
 [1] 
 https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-educat
on-and-open-source/ 
 
From the link: "It has been a crazy 24 hours for GitLab. More than 2,000 people tweeted about #movingtogitlab. We imported over 100,000 repositories, and we've seen a 7x increase in orders. We went live on Bloomberg TV. And on top of that, Apple announced an Xcode integration with GitLab." I find it honestly hilarious that MS buying GitHub has been a huge boost to GitLab. But then, I do love irony :) (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)
Jun 09
parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 23:41:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
 (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)
And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to Bitbucket. Endless cycle :)
Jun 09
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/09/2018 08:29 PM, bauss wrote:
 On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 23:41:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)
And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to Bitbucket. Endless cycle :)
Ahhh! Time to make my own then! Wouldn't mind getting $7mil from MS :)
Jun 09
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Sunday, 10 June 2018 at 00:29:04 UTC, bauss wrote:
 And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to 
 Bitbucket.

 Endless cycle :)
Until people figure out decentralization. AIU scuttlebutt server provides only discovery service, these proved to be able to run at little cost. And as tox shows, even discovery can be decentralized too.
Jun 10
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today).
We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: 1. It's just down the street. 2. Many D users work at Microsoft. 3. Microsoft has always been helpful and supportive of Digital Mars, note the files licensed from Microsoft in the distribution. 4. Microsoft has invited myself and Andrei to speak at Microsoft from time to time. 5. Microsoft hosts the nwcpp.org meetings, which provide a venue for me to try out D presentations to a friendly crowd. 6. Microsoft has been generous with helping me solve some vexing compatibility problems from time to time.
Jun 04
next sibling parent Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 08:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
 (which is today).
We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change.
It's understandable, moving organization this big around is not easy and it shouldn't be done unless it is absolutely needed.
 We have a number of ties to Microsoft:
It's great to know that MS is so nice to D. I guess that's because D isn't something over-hyped and MS might be interested in technologies, not in money or popularity.
Jun 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Maksim Fomin <mxfm protonmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 08:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
 (which is today).
We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: 1. It's just down the street. 2. Many D users work at Microsoft. 3. Microsoft has always been helpful and supportive of Digital Mars, note the files licensed from Microsoft in the distribution. 4. Microsoft has invited myself and Andrei to speak at Microsoft from time to time. 5. Microsoft hosts the nwcpp.org meetings, which provide a venue for me to try out D presentations to a friendly crowd. 6. Microsoft has been generous with helping me solve some vexing compatibility problems from time to time.
OK, so Digital Mars is in good relationship with Microsoft (I am surprised because have never heard about it). However, judging by Microsoft acqusition experience my prediction is that github will slowly but surely degradate (as suggested on some forums, everything will be firstly switched to Microsoft account - to track data, then everything will be mangled by ads, then some features deemed unnecessary by Microsoft will be removed, then linux will be badly supoorted, then some features incompatible with Microsoft services will stop working, then servers will start work poorly like skype...). P.S. My second reaction after reading news (after shock) was to visit D forum.
Jun 04
next sibling parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 08:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday 
 (which is today).
We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: 1. It's just down the street. 2. Many D users work at Microsoft. 3. Microsoft has always been helpful and supportive of Digital Mars, note the files licensed from Microsoft in the distribution. 4. Microsoft has invited myself and Andrei to speak at Microsoft from time to time. 5. Microsoft hosts the nwcpp.org meetings, which provide a venue for me to try out D presentations to a friendly crowd. 6. Microsoft has been generous with helping me solve some vexing compatibility problems from time to time.
OK, so Digital Mars is in good relationship with Microsoft (I am surprised because have never heard about it). However, judging by Microsoft acqusition experience my prediction is that github will slowly but surely degradate (as suggested on some forums, everything will be firstly switched to Microsoft account - to track data, then everything will be mangled by ads, then some features deemed unnecessary by Microsoft will be removed, then linux will be badly supoorted, then some features incompatible with Microsoft services will stop working, then servers will start work poorly like skype...). P.S. My second reaction after reading news (after shock) was to visit D forum.
Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it. I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more: http://aka.ms/ms06042018 Of course, this is Microsoft: they probably won't execute that plan well, and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place, but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent.
Jun 04
next sibling parent reply Maksim Fomin <mxfm protonmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:

 Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you 
 want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, 
 then neglect it.
You have no idea about how big corporations' management spends money. As with Nokia and Skype - I don't know whether it was initially a plan to destroy products or management was just silly.
 I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the 
 Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating 
 github into VS Code more:

 http://aka.ms/ms06042018

 and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the 
 first place
:) this is exactly how such deals are done - paying $7.5 bl. for nonprofitable company. Unfortunately, their books are unavailable because they are private company, but scarce information in the web suggests that in most of their years they have losses. Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase by $750 ml. This is more likely...
 but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and 
 independent.
They can claim anything which suits best their interests right now. Or, as alternative, github can be broken in a such way, that their promises on surface are kept. Business is badly compatible with opensource by design.
Jun 04
next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 20:00:45 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
 Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft 
 must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating 
 around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these 
 money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have 
 payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase 
 by $750 ml. This is more likely...
MS aims for cloud market, and github is a strategic asset there, as long as it helps the cloud business, it doesn't matter that github in isolation is not profitable. After MS takes over webdev and monopolizes the cloud market they can pull effective management again, but it will be a long way to go, but webdev being webdev can make it a little shorter. They were already kicked out of mobile market, it was reasonably unexpected, but it doesn't look like they plan to fall for it again.
Jun 05
prev sibling parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 20:00:45 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:

 Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because 
 you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools 
 company, then neglect it.
You have no idea about how big corporations' management spends money. As with Nokia and Skype - I don't know whether it was initially a plan to destroy products or management was just silly.
 I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the 
 Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as 
 integrating github into VS Code more:

 http://aka.ms/ms06042018

 and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the 
 first place
:) this is exactly how such deals are done - paying $7.5 bl. for nonprofitable company. Unfortunately, their books are unavailable because they are private company, but scarce information in the web suggests that in most of their years they have losses. Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase by $750 ml. This is more likely...
 but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and 
 independent.
They can claim anything which suits best their interests right now. Or, as alternative, github can be broken in a such way, that their promises on surface are kept. Business is badly compatible with opensource by design.
I just finished reading this interesting article by a former Microsoft business guy, which makes the same point I did, that MS is unlikely to neglect github or otherwise force it in some direction to leverage it: https://stratechery.com/2018/the-cost-of-developers/ You're right that MS has had many acquisitions go badly already, such as Nokia and Skype (though I'd argue both were long-term doomed before they were bought), but, as always, incompetence is the much more likely reason than malice.
Jun 09
prev sibling parent DigitalDesigns <DigitalDesigns gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
 [...]
Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it. I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more: http://aka.ms/ms06042018 Of course, this is Microsoft: they probably won't execute that plan well, and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place, but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent.
Yeah, like they did codeplex!
Jun 04
prev sibling parent Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:

 My second reaction after reading news (after shock) was to 
 visit D forum.
Same here! I was off for a few days and found out today on GitHub [1], and then I remembered the thread header talking about GitLab. I'm skeptical to say the least. I still remember how difficult it was to use Skype after it had been bought by MS. I dunno what's behind it. Polishing up their image, trying to get the copyright for all the code on GitHub, killing off OSS, or all of the above ;) MS have certainly missed a lot of stuff over the last couple of years, stuff that came out of or was based on the OSS community. Search engines, the success of Java, Android and the mobile phone market in general, social media etc. People will create and move to new platforms, simply because they don't like the thought of MS hosting their code (same goes for Google or Oracle). They will move to platforms made by their fellow programmers. Now, this will take some time and GitHub will do business as usual for at least a year. But the rot will set in sooner or later, I think. [1] e.g. https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/
Jun 05
prev sibling parent reply RalphBa <ralph.bariz pm.me> writes:
Sorry to hear that. Since I do not belive Microsoft changed 
perspective and am convinced they still see open source as cancer 
I need to assume they try to inflitrate the OSS community the 
last years. So for sure I won't rely on their stuff.

So is there a chance Digital Mars and D main development is 
getting bought by Microsoft?

BR
Ralph
Jun 04
parent reply Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On 06/04/2018 11:46 PM, RalphBa wrote:
 Sorry to hear that. Since I do not belive Microsoft changed perspective 
 and am convinced they still see open source as cancer I need to assume 
 they try to inflitrate the OSS community the last years. So for sure I 
 won't rely on their stuff.
 
 So is there a chance Digital Mars and D main development is getting 
 bought by Microsoft?
 
 BR
 Ralph
They have C++ and C#. What do they need D for? -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Jun 04
parent RalphBa <ralph.bariz pm.me> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:50:41 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 On 06/04/2018 11:46 PM, RalphBa wrote:
 Sorry to hear that. Since I do not belive Microsoft changed 
 perspective and am convinced they still see open source as 
 cancer I need to assume they try to inflitrate the OSS 
 community the last years. So for sure I won't rely on their 
 stuff.
 
 So is there a chance Digital Mars and D main development is 
 getting bought by Microsoft?
 
 BR
 Ralph
They have C++ and C#. What do they need D for?
C# yes... they have. C++ they have just the windows world which is just a small part of the C++ ecosystem. The rest is mostly shared between GNU Compilers and LLVM. Well, gladly LLVM also play D now, so even a takeover from M$ might not lead to more but in worst case a fork. So if DM is in a "we would do such deal" mood, it would be wise for the D community to bet on ldc. Also I hope GDC will see a revival one day.
Jun 05
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
Oh look, rumours are confirmed:

https://itsfoss.com/microsoft-github/
MS bought GitHub for $5 billion.
Jun 04
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 09:47:58 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 Oh look, rumours are confirmed:

 https://itsfoss.com/microsoft-github/
 MS bought GitHub for $5 billion.
It's official, Nat Friedman, formerly of Xamarin, is the new CEO: https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/ MS is basically selling a story to Wall Street, "Everything new we tried since Windows and Office has failed abysmally, so we've learned our lesson and will be the business software company from now on," hence buying LinkedIn, pushing Azure, and now buying Github. I don't expect this new management direction to go any better.
Jun 04
parent reply Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 18:17:24 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 09:47:58 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 Oh look, rumours are confirmed:

 https://itsfoss.com/microsoft-github/
 MS bought GitHub for $5 billion.
It's official, Nat Friedman, formerly of Xamarin, is the new CEO: https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/
Also, there's an article from Satya Nadella, current CEO of Microsoft: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/06/04/microsoft-github-empowering-developers/
 MS is basically selling a story to Wall Street, "Everything new 
 we tried since Windows and Office has failed abysmally, so 
 we've learned our lesson and will be the business software 
 company from now on," hence buying LinkedIn, pushing Azure, and 
 now buying Github. I don't expect this new management direction 
 to go any better.
Of course MS does, since they spent $5 billion on it. They will try their best to make profit out of it, just like they did with LinkedIn.
Jun 04
parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 6/4/18 2:46 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:

 Of course MS does, since they spent $5 billion on it. They will try 
 their best to make profit out of it, just like they did with LinkedIn.
$7.5 billion. -Steve
Jun 04
prev sibling next sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 6/3/18 11:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is 
 today).
 
 Some articles about the topic:
 
 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors 
 
 
 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
Of course.
 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D projects - 
 dub registry supported them for a while now.
I use both bitbucket and github. I think I will simply continue to use what makes sense at the time (as Jonathan pointed out, hosting a private repository is free on bitbucket).
 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the 
 GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and programmers 
 to improve it further, I just don't trust them too much which is the 
 right thing to do when dealing with companies. This means that I will 
 move my repositories elsewhere and use GitHub just to contribute to 
 other projects.
I don't know if it makes any difference to me. Sure, they have infrastructure and market share, but all that changes if they do something really annoying. There are good competing sites, and people will just move their stuff. I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to make software that ports your entire github project to gitlab or whatever, maybe it already exists. Microsoft just isn't the same big bad company that once paid for Linux licenses from SCO group to fund their lawsuit against Linux. This past year, they actually incorporated part of Linux into their OS! I don't think this is necessarily going to be bad for github. One thing I have read that is intriguing: if you are a Microsoft competitor and you have private-source repos at github, how do you feel about that? -Steve
Jun 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On 6/3/18 20:51, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is 
 today).
 
 Some articles about the topic:
 
 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors 
 
 
 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
 
 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D projects - 
 dub registry supported them for a while now.
 
 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the 
 GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and programmers 
 to improve it further, I just don't trust them too much which is the 
 right thing to do when dealing with companies. This means that I will 
 move my repositories elsewhere and use GitHub just to contribute to 
 other projects.
 
I've been thinking how to best respond to this and here is where I am. First, let me state up-front that I work for Microsoft (Office 365 Workplace Analytics). Second, my employer (Volometrix) prior to working for Microsoft was acquired by Microsoft almost three years ago. What that means is that while my division had no fore-warning of this acquisition I have first-hand experience with what will be happening at GitHub over the next months and years. As an employee of Microsoft I am required to follow Microsoft's policy on Social Media, which can be reduced to "If you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all." Or stated plainly, what follows may or may not represent the entirety of my thoughts on the matter as I am effectively barred from revealing any negative thoughts. So what I can say about this acquisition is that it is the best possible outcome of GitHub's possible futures for both the company and the employees. GitHub has not been profitable for years and is thought to have had cash reserves for only one or two more months of operations. Losing GitHub entirely overnight would have been an unmitigated disaster for the entire Open-Source community. And there are fates worse than death. Imagine for a second GitHub at Google or ... *shudder* Oracle. Whatever your opinions about Microsoft, you cannot possible imagine that either of those outcomes would have been qualitatively better. In that sense Microsoft was the best of the bad options GitHub. As to any other concerns/opinions, all I will say is ... think laterally. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Jun 04
next sibling parent Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On 06/04/2018 08:53 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
 On 6/3/18 20:51, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is 
 today).

 Some articles about the topic:

 https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/
 https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors 


 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?

 Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D projects 
 - dub registry supported them for a while now.

 IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the 
 GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and 
 programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too much 
 which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies. This means 
 that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use GitHub just to 
 contribute to other projects.
I've been thinking how to best respond to this and here is where I am. First, let me state up-front that I work for Microsoft (Office 365 Workplace Analytics). Second, my employer (Volometrix) prior to working for Microsoft was acquired by Microsoft almost three years ago. What that means is that while my division had no fore-warning of this acquisition I have first-hand experience with what will be happening at GitHub over the next months and years. As an employee of Microsoft I am required to follow Microsoft's policy on Social Media, which can be reduced to "If you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all." Or stated plainly, what follows may or may not represent the entirety of my thoughts on the matter as I am effectively barred from revealing any negative thoughts. So what I can say about this acquisition is that it is the best possible outcome of GitHub's possible futures for both the company and the employees. GitHub has not been profitable for years and is thought to have had cash reserves for only one or two more months of operations. Losing GitHub entirely overnight would have been an unmitigated disaster for the entire Open-Source community. And there are fates worse than death. Imagine for a second GitHub at Google or ... *shudder* Oracle. Whatever your opinions about Microsoft, you cannot possible imagine that either of those outcomes would have been qualitatively better. In that sense Microsoft was the best of the bad options GitHub. As to any other concerns/opinions, all I will say is ... think laterally.
As a reminder I have no inside information on what goes on over in the Azure world and that is where GitHub will land as has been announced. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Jun 04
prev sibling parent reply MSFanBoy_kinda <MSFanBoy MSFanBoy.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 03:53:31 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 GitHub has not been profitable for years and is thought to have 
 had cash reserves for only one or two more months of 
 operations. Losing GitHub entirely overnight would have been an 
 unmitigated disaster for the entire Open-Source community.
Of course it had to be losing money..how else would they have convinced everyone it need to be aquired? That's long term business strategy at work ;-)
 And there are fates worse than death. Imagine for a second 
 GitHub at Google or ... *shudder* Oracle. Whatever your 
 opinions about Microsoft, you cannot possible imagine that 
 either of those outcomes would have been qualitatively better. 
 In that sense Microsoft was the best of the bad options GitHub.
'best of the bad options'? Now which company has done more for software development, besides Microsoft? Mostly closed source proprietary, sure, but still...(and that's changed a lot now!) I'm sure MS Linux will come out soon .. someone has to compete with Ubuntu. And sure, MS stopped a lot of other developers/apps from competing ...but hey, that's business...what else can we expect (from any for-profit, shareholder company). C# - Windows Forms - Database integration - anyone? I still program with them ;-) If I tried doing any one of my 'windows forms apps' on any open source solution/platform, the productivity loss alone would be immense. I also remember when I was programming DOS gui apps back in the early nineties - using Visual Basic 1.0 for DOS - it was just amazing how easy it was (even though it never caught on, cause Windows was about to become the next big thing.) Try doing those apps in Borland C....jeessseses...! MS have done more for software developers, than anyone, in my opinion. Now I'm not a fan of the MS cloud push at all, but for high productivity development tools and sophisticated applications, MS were always hard to beat. That is, until Windows 8 came out.. then it all went backwards...now its all that html javascript crap! or stupid useless apps on the ms apps store - or that god awful monstrosity that VS studio has become!! (I'm still on VS2010, using C# 4.0 and Windows Forms...and I'm not moving!) No doubt Github will just be integrated into their overall crappy vision of their cloud future... I hate cloud! Dump the tablet and mobile, and bring back the pc ( running Windows XP 64 bit, or course - where admin means admin!).
Jun 05
parent reply RalphBa <ralph.bariz pm.me> writes:
 Of course it had to be losing money..how else would they have 
 convinced everyone it need to be aquired? That's long term Now 
 which company has done more for software development, besides 
 Microsoft?
GNU... oh sorry, you are speaking about companies... Sun... ok, open and free software isn't really compatible with making money. Best argument why to leave GitHub if you do such kind of software.
 Mostly closed source proprietary, sure, but still...(and that's 
 changed a lot now!)
Well, changed... you really belive them? And mind, open source doesn't imply open and free software, only vice versa. How young are you to not knowing M$ better?
 I'm sure MS Linux will come out soon .. someone has to compete 
 with Ubuntu.
Still M$, still noone essential who will use it... and if only to make a point.
 And sure, MS stopped a lot of other developers/apps from 
 competing ...but hey, that's business...what else can we expect 
 (from any for-profit, shareholder company).
Up there... I wrote something of incompatible, so no not expecting anything else. Thats exactly the point.
 C# - Windows Forms - Database integration - anyone? I still 
 program with them ;-)

 If I tried doing any one of my 'windows forms apps' on any open 
 source solution/platform, the productivity loss alone would be 
 immense.
Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET is a sandbox for children and UX people. And yes I know what I'm speaking about... not only up to 4.0 what by the way should lack support and security fixes in the meantime, but as XP user you are common to.
 I hate cloud! Dump the tablet and mobile, and bring back the pc 
 ( running Windows XP 64 bit, or course - where admin means 
 admin!).
Let me try to correct you, you hate centralised clouds. There is another concept of cloud even it isn't that far yet. But I'm pretty sure it will once solve the dilamma that stuff can be infiltrated/bought in one big chunk. Or the one that it has to be financed by one Organisation. BR Ralph
Jun 05
next sibling parent Down <down2now yahoo.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 16:12:25 UTC, RalphBa wrote:
 Of course it had to be losing money..how else would they have 
 convinced everyone it need to be aquired? That's long term Now 
 which company has done more for software development, besides 
 Microsoft?
GNU... oh sorry, you are speaking about companies... Sun... ok, open and free software isn't really compatible with making money. Best argument why to leave GitHub if you do such kind of software.
 Mostly closed source proprietary, sure, but still...(and 
 that's changed a lot now!)
Well, changed... you really belive them? And mind, open source doesn't imply open and free software, only vice versa. How young are you to not knowing M$ better?
 I'm sure MS Linux will come out soon .. someone has to compete 
 with Ubuntu.
Still M$, still noone essential who will use it... and if only to make a point.
 And sure, MS stopped a lot of other developers/apps from 
 competing ...but hey, that's business...what else can we 
 expect (from any for-profit, shareholder company).
Up there... I wrote something of incompatible, so no not expecting anything else. Thats exactly the point.
 C# - Windows Forms - Database integration - anyone? I still 
 program with them ;-)

 If I tried doing any one of my 'windows forms apps' on any 
 open source solution/platform, the productivity loss alone 
 would be immense.
Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET is a sandbox for children and UX people. And yes I know what I'm speaking about... not only up to 4.0 what by the way should lack support and security fixes in the meantime, but as XP user you are common to.
 I hate cloud! Dump the tablet and mobile, and bring back the 
 pc ( running Windows XP 64 bit, or course - where admin means 
 admin!).
Let me try to correct you, you hate centralised clouds. There is another concept of cloud even it isn't that far yet. But I'm pretty sure it will once solve the dilamma that stuff can be infiltrated/bought in one big chunk. Or the one that it has to be financed by one Organisation. BR Ralph
Nothing wrong with the cloud. The past few companies Ive worked for (small) have used AWS and Azure. Not managing servers and services make it easy for small companies. For instance we use Beanstalk, ECS, Cloudfront, RDS, ElasticCache, Lambda, SQS, and SNS at my current job. With only 5 employees this would be a pain to deal with on own and the cost is about 1000/month for us. Sure we could have our own servers in a datacenter but then that just brings even more headache and the cost would be more than AWS. I agree that large companies serving vast amounts of the internet is not a good thing but the times we live in.
Jun 05
prev sibling parent reply Apocalypto <apocalypto gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 16:12:25 UTC, RalphBa wrote:

 Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET 
 is a sandbox for children and UX people.
Oh yeah, toy applications for children like StackOverflow, Siemens NX, Solidworks, most of the Azure platform, MSSQL and Visual Studio just to name a few. Even a toy compiler like Roslyn. Don't be surprised if github will run someday on top of the .net platform. Welcome to the children playground!
Jun 05
parent reply aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 17:12:00 UTC, Apocalypto wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 16:12:25 UTC, RalphBa wrote:

 Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET 
 is a sandbox for children and UX people.
Oh yeah, toy applications for children like StackOverflow, Siemens NX, Solidworks, most of the Azure platform, MSSQL and Visual Studio just to name a few. Even a toy compiler like Roslyn. Don't be surprised if github will run someday on top of the .net platform. Welcome to the children playground!
This take on Microsoft is really ridiculous. I hope it's all just for fun. I've been using Linux 100% for years and it's really ridiculous seeing comments about Microsoft being some evil company. Beating competition with alternative product is everywhere...Google took over from Yahoo, Github from Rosetta and Co, Facebook from others,...its all competition in business. These people who complain don't usually contribute a penny to Open source. Frankly, Microsoft has done great things for the world with software. Making computers accessible to everyone... They recently came out with VS Code which is better than any existing open source alternative...even though it uses same technology as atom and bracket text editor. Really, Microsoft write high quality software... proprietary or open source. They contribute to Linux and other tools. There's the major contributor to open source. Github is a for-profit company so of course i would expect to make profit too if I bought it. Your employer doesn't pay you with leaves. That money comes from commercialization. Developers must eat. I think some only look at what happened during Steve Balmer's time as ceo. It was "HIS" strategy to pick on Linux. In fact, he pick on Apple too and several other competing products. Its all marketing and competition and its pretty much everywhere. Monopoly and patent registration is everywhere. I'm not saying its a good thing or bad,...Its not just Microsoft. If you're don't trust Microsoft, you shouldn't trust any commercial company. Microsoft has changed business model too by embracing open source. In fact, their the real believers in open source now compared to those who don't think theirs money in open source.
Jun 05
parent Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 23:40:37 UTC, aberba wrote:

 These people who complain don't usually contribute a penny to 
 Open source.
I dare doubt that this is true.
 Frankly, Microsoft has done great things for the world with 
 software. Making computers accessible to everyone...
...and lock users in. Making computers accessible in terms of UI started with Xerox whose engineers later went to Apple. It was actually Apple that took computers away from the CLI high priests, but Apple machines were too expensive. MS's UIs were quite crap at the beginning, but they were clever enough to make their products available on cheaper PCs. Apple were too elitist. [...]
 I think some only look at what happened during Steve Balmer's 
 time as ceo. It was "HIS" strategy to pick on Linux. In fact, 
 he pick on Apple too and several other competing products. Its 
 all marketing and competition and its pretty much everywhere. 
 Monopoly and patent registration is everywhere. I'm not saying 
 its a good thing or bad,...Its not just Microsoft.
See, that's the thing. MS under Steve Balmer played really really dirty. It was completely OTT, even by dog-eat-dog business standards that, btw, most people are aware of. We know how business works. Once the trust is gone it is very hard (or nigh impossible) to get people to trust you again. MS, under Steve Balmer, relied too much on bullying, intimidation and locking users in. However, they missed a lot of developments which was their downfall. With the advent of Mac OS X, iOS and Android, people began to realize that there was a digital life beyond MS (remember when people were afraid to buy anything else but Windows PCs saying "I don't want to be trapped in the Mac world", while cursing Windows at the same time?) People don't trust MS anymore and even if they are "nice" now, who knows whether it's not just because they are no longer in a position of power ("the wolf has eaten chalk"). But that's MS's problem, not mine.
 If you're don't trust Microsoft, you shouldn't trust any 
 commercial company. Microsoft has changed business model too by 
 embracing open source. In fact, their the real believers in 
 open source now compared to those who don't think theirs money 
 in open source.
You shouldn't trust big IT companies. The names of people who have been cheated out of their software by them are legion.
Jun 06
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/03/2018 11:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 
 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
 
The obvious question is "Will MS use evil/strongarm shenanigans with GitHub?" That would've been the one and only right question if this were the 90's. (And the answer probably would've been, "Duh, yes.") But, while I am somewhat concerned about that possibility (mainly in the long term), with modern MS I think I'm really more concerned about GitHub being marred by bone-headed ideas and/or sheer ineptitude. Way I see it, that's kinda been MS's main MO the last decode or so. (Heck, their games and OS divisions can barely even count numbers. One...three-hundred sixty...one again...eight...point one...ten...) Let's face it, evil or not, when MS touches stuff, how often do they NOT wind up damaging it one way or the other? Sometimes maybe, but not usually. I don't think this is a "sky is falling" omen for GitHub (...although there WAS codeplex...but then again, codeplex was kinda inferior to its competitors anyway). And I don't think there will be any immediate problems (even MS isn't that stupid, and if they are...it'd take time to implement anyway). But, based on MS record, I do think it's likely there will be some facepalm/WTF moments for GitHub users down the road. The big questions are "What?", "When?" and "Will they be promptly reverted/mitigated?" I've always felt GitLab was better than GitHub (in large part because they're sensible enough to support self-hosting), so it's tempting to use this as a great reason to move to GitLab. I won't though, unless MS-GitHub starts doing things that irritate me. Then I probably will. In any case, I've always thought it was absolutely sick that that even though GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab/Launchpad/etc. all provide basically the same features on top of the standard ***distributed*** version control systems, they are all completely incapable of talking to each other or acting as interchangable viewers on a single set of common project data. So much for the "distributed" in "DVCS". What I've ALWAYS felt we needed, and even moreso now, is a tool to commoditize these "VCS Plus" services. So we can just FORCE the choice of GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab to be "Whatever frontend the user prefers", and everything gets cross-synced and interlinked, etc., and bring the "distributed" back to DVCS, rather than chaining each project to a centralized walled garden. Keep in mind, if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing repository hosting, issue tracking, PRs, user accounts, etc. right from the start like we should've been, then this MS buyout of GitHub would've been entirely irrelevant to everyone outside GitHub itself. That's what happens with single points of failure. And the reason VCSes even went DVCS in the first place.
Jun 06
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/6/2018 10:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 Keep in mind, if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing repository 
 hosting, issue tracking, PRs, user accounts, etc. right from the start like we 
 should've been, then this MS buyout of GitHub would've been entirely
irrelevant 
 to everyone outside GitHub itself. That's what happens with single points of 
 failure. And the reason VCSes even went DVCS in the first place.
Bugzilla for issue tracking is independent of Github.
Jun 07
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/07/2018 04:36 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/6/2018 10:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 Keep in mind, if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing 
 repository hosting, issue tracking, PRs, user accounts, etc. right 
 from the start like we should've been, then this MS buyout of GitHub 
 would've been entirely irrelevant to everyone outside GitHub itself. 
 That's what happens with single points of failure. And the reason 
 VCSes even went DVCS in the first place.
Bugzilla for issue tracking is independent of Github.
Yea, it certainly does have that going for it. And I have no real big objections to bugzilla. It would be nice, though, if it were better (and more cleanly) integrated with GitHub/GitLab/BitBucket/etc., and if its data were all distributively stored in git. Oh, also, just in case I wasn't clear, when I said "if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing..." I meant "we" as in the worldwide programmer community in general, not the D community specifically.
Jun 07
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/7/2018 4:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 Yea, it certainly does have that going for it. And I have no real big
objections 
 to bugzilla. It would be nice, though, if it were better (and more cleanly) 
 integrated with GitHub/GitLab/BitBucket/etc., and if its data were all 
 distributively stored in git.
There was some discussion a while back about abandoning Bugzilla and going with Github for issue tracking. In the light of the risk of "all our eggs in one basket" it seems prudent to keep them separate. Besides, I like Bugzilla and it has served us well.
Jun 07
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 05:28:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
 I've always felt GitLab was better than GitHub (in large part 
 because they're sensible enough to support self-hosting), so 
 it's tempting to use this as a great reason to move to GitLab.
I've been following the discussions (mainly on HN) on the subject, and there are a few arguments against GitLab (i.e. the gitlab.com SaaS) as well. - The company might be purchased by a bigger one in the same way that happened to GitHub. - The conflict of interest between the free and paid tiers means that some issues that are useful for open-source projects won't be available to them, even though they are available at their competitors. - gitlab.com provides features unavailable in the open-source (community) edition to all projects, which means that migrating away from gitlab.com and to a self-hosted instance would be a compromise involving losing features.
 In any case, I've always thought it was absolutely sick that 
 that even though GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab/Launchpad/etc. all 
 provide basically the same features on top of the standard 
 ***distributed*** version control systems, they are all 
 completely incapable of talking to each other or acting as 
 interchangable viewers on a single set of common project data. 
 So much for the "distributed" in "DVCS".
Many people think so too: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/4517 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4013 Unfortunately it looks like the current plan for federation in GitLab will once again be only in the paid version.
Jun 07
parent reply drug <drug2004 bk.ru> writes:
07.06.2018 14:12, Vladimir Panteleev пишет:
 On Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 05:28:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 I've always felt GitLab was better than GitHub (in large part because 
 they're sensible enough to support self-hosting), so it's tempting to 
 use this as a great reason to move to GitLab.
I've been following the discussions (mainly on HN) on the subject, and there are a few arguments against GitLab (i.e. the gitlab.com SaaS) as well. - The company might be purchased by a bigger one in the same way that happened to GitHub. - The conflict of interest between the free and paid tiers means that some issues that are useful for open-source projects won't be available to them, even though they are available at their competitors. - gitlab.com provides features unavailable in the open-source (community) edition to all projects, which means that migrating away from gitlab.com and to a self-hosted instance would be a compromise involving losing features.
 In any case, I've always thought it was absolutely sick that that even 
 though GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab/Launchpad/etc. all provide basically 
 the same features on top of the standard ***distributed*** version 
 control systems, they are all completely incapable of talking to each 
 other or acting as interchangable viewers on a single set of common 
 project data. So much for the "distributed" in "DVCS".
Many people think so too: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/4517 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4013 Unfortunately it looks like the current plan for federation in GitLab will once again be only in the paid version.
isn't it a niche for THE application that could be written in D?
Jun 07
parent rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 08/06/2018 12:03 AM, drug wrote:
 isn't it a niche for THE application that could be written in D?
I don't think D brings anything to the table when it comes to VCS. It'll be nicer code, but it won't be noticed by users kind of nice. On the other hand, Weka.IO does bring a lot to the table...
Jun 07
prev sibling next sibling parent Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 05:28:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
 On 06/03/2018 11:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 
 What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
 
The obvious question is "Will MS use evil/strongarm shenanigans with GitHub?" In any case, I've always thought it was absolutely sick that that even though GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab/Launchpad/etc. all provide basically the same features on top of the standard ***distributed*** version control systems, they are all completely incapable of talking to each other or acting as interchangable viewers on a single set of common project data. So much for the "distributed" in "DVCS".
https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/the_single_most_important_criteria_when_replacing_Github/
Jun 07
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 01:28:26AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
 In any case, I've always thought it was absolutely sick that that even
 though GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab/Launchpad/etc. all provide basically
 the same features on top of the standard ***distributed*** version
 control systems, they are all completely incapable of talking to each
 other or acting as interchangable viewers on a single set of common
 project data. So much for the "distributed" in "DVCS".
Exactly!!! Git was built precisely for decentralized, distributed development. Anyone should be (and is, if they bothered to put just a tiny amount of effort into it) able to set up a git server and send the URL to prospective collaborators. Anyone is free to clone the git repo and redistribute that clone to anyone else. Anyone can create new commits in a local clone and send the URL to another collaborator who can pull the commits. It should never have become the tool to build walled gardens that inhibit this free sharing of code.
 What I've ALWAYS felt we needed, and even moreso now, is a tool to
 commoditize these "VCS Plus" services. So we can just FORCE the choice
 of GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab to be "Whatever frontend the user prefers",
 and everything gets cross-synced and interlinked, etc., and bring the
 "distributed" back to DVCS, rather than chaining each project to a
 centralized walled garden.
Yes.
 Keep in mind, if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing
 repository hosting, issue tracking, PRs, user accounts, etc. right
 from the start like we should've been, then this MS buyout of GitHub
 would've been entirely irrelevant to everyone outside GitHub itself.
 That's what happens with single points of failure. And the reason
 VCSes even went DVCS in the first place.
Indeed. Remember the Amazon AWS blackout that affected hundreds (thousands?) of websites? That's what happens with centralized systems. Yet people just never learn... T -- Study gravitation, it's a field with a lot of potential.
Jun 07
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/7/2018 10:17 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Exactly!!!  Git was built precisely for decentralized, distributed
 development.  Anyone should be (and is, if they bothered to put just a
 tiny amount of effort into it) able to set up a git server and send the
 URL to prospective collaborators.  Anyone is free to clone the git repo
 and redistribute that clone to anyone else.  Anyone can create new
 commits in a local clone and send the URL to another collaborator who
 can pull the commits.  It should never have become the tool to build
 walled gardens that inhibit this free sharing of code.
We have more on Github than just the source code. There are all the comments that go with the PRs. I have most of this archived, as they get emailed to me by Github, but not all of it and recreating all this priceless historical information into a usable form would be very burdensome.
Jun 07
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:11:40PM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On 6/7/2018 10:17 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Exactly!!!  Git was built precisely for decentralized, distributed
 development.  Anyone should be (and is, if they bothered to put just
 a tiny amount of effort into it) able to set up a git server and
 send the URL to prospective collaborators.  Anyone is free to clone
 the git repo and redistribute that clone to anyone else.  Anyone can
 create new commits in a local clone and send the URL to another
 collaborator who can pull the commits.  It should never have become
 the tool to build walled gardens that inhibit this free sharing of
 code.
We have more on Github than just the source code. There are all the comments that go with the PRs. I have most of this archived, as they get emailed to me by Github, but not all of it and recreating all this priceless historical information into a usable form would be very burdensome.
And that is why it's a bad thing to build a walled garden around a code repo, esp. when the underlying VCS is well capable of distributed development. If only there has been a standard protocol for communicating such associated content, such as PR comments and discussions, bugs and issues (this latter not applicable in our case, thankfully), then we could have setup an archival system to retrieve and store all of this information. Unfortunately, AFAIK there isn't a way to do this, and so if Github for whatever reason shuts down, all of this valuable information would be lost forever. The same problem faces us if for whatever reason we decide to move to a different VCS hosting provider in the future: the lack of a common, compatible data exchange format for PRs, comments, issues, etc., means that it will be very hard (practically impossible) to export this data and import it into the new system. It's a mild form of vendor lock-in. Mild in the sense that we can take the code with us anytime, thanks to the way git works, but the valuable associated information like PR discussions is specific to Github and there is no easy way (if there's a way at all!) to export this data and import it elsewhere. It's 2018, and history has shown that standard, open data formats are what stands the test of time. We *could* have had a standardized interchange format for representing PR discussions, standard vendor-agnostic protocols for bug-tracking, PR merging, etc.. Yet we're still stuck in the 1998 mindset of building walled gardens that lock us into an inescapable dependence on a specific vendor. Thankfully git allows at least the code to be free from this lock-in, but still, as you said, priceless historical information resides in data that only exists on Github, and the lack of common protocols means we're bound to Github by the fear of losing this data forever if we leave. T -- Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue. -- Yoon Ha Lee, CONLANG
Jun 07
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/08/2018 01:01 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 but the valuable associated information like PR
 discussions is specific to Github and there is no easy way (if there's a
 way at all!) to export this data and import it elsewhere.
For importing, you may be right. For exporting, I'm not sure I agree. With curl and something like Adam's HTML DOM (or heck, even just regex) it shouldn't be too difficult to crawl/scrape all the information into a sensible format. That's a technique I've been wanting to do a LOT more with than I've had a chance to. Although granted, that's still far more complicated than it SHOULD be, and doesn't help much if there's nowhere to import it into.
 It's 2018, and history has shown that standard, open data formats are
 what stands the test of time.
Yup. Unfortunately, history has also shown that closed-off and locked-in tend to be more lucrative business models. Which is why all the big muscle in the tech world is usually working *against* open standards.
Jun 08
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 02:02:12PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On 06/08/2018 01:01 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 but the valuable associated information like PR discussions is
 specific to Github and there is no easy way (if there's a way at
 all!) to export this data and import it elsewhere.
For importing, you may be right. For exporting, I'm not sure I agree. With curl and something like Adam's HTML DOM (or heck, even just regex) it shouldn't be too difficult to crawl/scrape all the information into a sensible format. That's a technique I've been wanting to do a LOT more with than I've had a chance to.
True, you can write a crawler to trawl through all the pages and collate all the info. But it doesn't seem to be something that can be done overnight, and the extracted data will probably need further processing to be put into a more useful form (e.g., resolving cross-links, parse references between PRs, etc., dumping the raw HTML is only the first step).
 Although granted, that's still far more complicated than it SHOULD be,
 and doesn't help much if there's nowhere to import it into.
Even if there were somewhere to import it, it would still require a fair amount of effort to massage the data into the right format to be imported.
 It's 2018, and history has shown that standard, open data formats
 are what stands the test of time.
Yup. Unfortunately, history has also shown that closed-off and locked-in tend to be more lucrative business models. Which is why all the big muscle in the tech world is usually working *against* open standards.
Of course. Money corrupts, and where money is involved, you can expect that anything else that stands in the way to be shoved aside or thrown out the window completely, no matter how much more sense it may make. Ironic, that Github hasn't turned a profit yet. :-D T -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares? -- Erich Schubert
Jun 08
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/7/2018 10:01 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 And that is why it's a bad thing to build a walled garden around a code
 repo, esp. when the underlying VCS is well capable of distributed
 development.  If only there has been a standard protocol for
 communicating such associated content, such as PR comments and
 discussions, bugs and issues (this latter not applicable in our case,
 thankfully), then we could have setup an archival system to retrieve and
 store all of this information.  Unfortunately, AFAIK there isn't a way
 to do this, and so if Github for whatever reason shuts down, all of this
 valuable information would be lost forever.
Since I have (most) of the Github discussions in email form, I could do something like this if we had to: https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/index.html There's a program that runs over the NNTP database to generate the static pages: https://github.com/DigitalMars/ngArchiver
Jun 08
parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 6/8/2018 2:34 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On 6/7/2018 10:01 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 And that is why it's a bad thing to build a walled garden around a code
 repo, esp. when the underlying VCS is well capable of distributed
 development.  If only there has been a standard protocol for
 communicating such associated content, such as PR comments and
 discussions, bugs and issues (this latter not applicable in our case,
 thankfully), then we could have setup an archival system to retrieve and
 store all of this information.  Unfortunately, AFAIK there isn't a way
 to do this, and so if Github for whatever reason shuts down, all of this
 valuable information would be lost forever.
Since I have (most) of the Github discussions in email form, I could do something like this if we had to: https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/index.html There's a program that runs over the NNTP database to generate the static pages: https://github.com/DigitalMars/ngArchiver
Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through their api's. No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it.
Jun 08
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/8/2018 3:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through their 
 api's.  No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it.
That's good to know! The situation I was concerned with is it going dark all of a sudden. BTW, if someone wants to build a scraper that'll produce static web pages of the dlang PR discussions, that would be pretty cool!
Jun 08
next sibling parent reply Kapps <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 8 June 2018 at 22:06:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/8/2018 3:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is 
 available through their api's.  No need for scraping or other 
 heroics to gather it.
That's good to know! The situation I was concerned with is it going dark all of a sudden. BTW, if someone wants to build a scraper that'll produce static web pages of the dlang PR discussions, that would be pretty cool!
There's plenty of third party tools that archive GitHub. For example, https://www.gharchive.org/. GitHub advertises some of them at https://help.github.com/articles/about-archiving-content-and-data-on-github/#third-par y-archival-projects and https://help.github.com/articles/backing-up-a-repository/. Personally I think the fear of Microsoft ruining GitHub is completely unfounded. Just look at what they did to Xamarin. They bought an interesting product and then made it free for individuals, open sourced it, and improved it drastically. And they sure do hate Linux nowadays with dotnet CORE being partially to improve Linux / cross-platform support.
Jun 08
next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> writes:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 00:54:08 UTC, Kapps wrote:
 Personally I think the fear of Microsoft ruining GitHub is 
 completely unfounded. Just look at what they did to Xamarin. 
 They bought an interesting product and then made it free for 
 individuals, open sourced it, and improved it drastically. And 
 they sure do hate Linux nowadays with dotnet CORE being 
 partially to improve Linux / cross-platform support.
These days, I don't think the "evil" of MS is the thing to be concerned about. I'm more concerned about unpredictably and unreliability. The potential for mess-ups or mind-changing or other surprises down the road. Not that it necessarily WILL happen, but I think being MS its worth being prepared, just in case.
Jun 08
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/8/2018 5:54 PM, Kapps wrote:
 Personally I think the fear of Microsoft ruining GitHub is completely
unfounded. 
My concern has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's about not totally relying on any third party not under our control.
Jun 08
parent SpaceInvader <spaceinvader spaceinvaders.com> writes:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:09:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/8/2018 5:54 PM, Kapps wrote:
 Personally I think the fear of Microsoft ruining GitHub is 
 completely unfounded.
My concern has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's about not totally relying on any third party not under our control.
Mmm..but the whole point of 'cloud' (from a business model perspective) is to make us all rely on 3rd parties not under our control. MS wants github in order to create strategic dependencies - i.e. have 'them' host 'our' stuff. That creates the dependency. Now they have us. Even if the D foundation set up its own git repo, it would still need to host it somewhere. So no matter what you do, in the cloud, you're always dependent on someone. There just no getting around it. So, in the cloud, it all comes back to risk management. Ideally, repo's could be replicated across different hosting providers/platforms, and in the event of one going belly up, we'd all automatically switch over.... ..but what are the chances that rival companies will co-operate, so that can be achieved?
Jun 08
prev sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 15:06 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
 On 6/8/2018 3:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through
 their=20
 api's.  No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it.
=20 That's good to know! The situation I was concerned with is it going dark =
all
 of=20
 a sudden.
[=E2=80=A6] Good job Microsoft bought GitHub then: GitHub was likely running out of cas= h, so needed a quick sale to avoid it going dark very suddenly. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Jun 09
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/08/2018 06:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 
 Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through 
 their api's.  No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it.
That does make things a little bit simpler, but web scraping really isn't all that much more complicated. Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests. The main differences are just: Web scraping can occasionally get thwarted by changes in the webapp's presentation layer. Whereas web API can occasionally get thwarted by business rules changing what is/isn't accessible via API (this has been known to happen). Ie, scraping needs to deal with UI changes, but unlike API, it cannot be selectively hindered/disabled (unless the primary website itself is hindered/disabled, too). Thus, a robust tool will support both published web API and web scraping, and select the answers from whichever one works.
Jun 09
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:06:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
 Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to 
 submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the 
 format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow 
 up with additional HTTP requests.
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html done?
Jun 09
parent "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/09/2018 03:56 AM, Kagamin wrote:
 On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:06:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit 
 an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server 
 has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP 
 requests.
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html done?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAuPb16jRjY
Jun 09
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 10:17 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 Exactly!!!  Git was built precisely for decentralized, distributed
 development.  Anyone should be (and is, if they bothered to put just a
 tiny amount of effort into it) able to set up a git server and send the
 URL to prospective collaborators.  Anyone is free to clone the git repo
 and redistribute that clone to anyone else.  Anyone can create new
 commits in a local clone and send the URL to another collaborator who
 can pull the commits.  It should never have become the tool to build
 walled gardens that inhibit this free sharing of code.
=20
I think there is an interesting tension between using a DVCS as a DVCS and = no central resource, and thus no mainline version, and using a DVCS in combination with a central resource. In the latter category the central resource may just be the repository acting as the mainline, or, as with GitHub, GitLab, Launchpad, the central resource provides sharing and review= ing support. Very few organisations, except perhaps those that use Fossil, actually use DVCS as a DVCS. Everyone seems to want a public mainline version: the repository that represents the official state of the project. It seems the world is not capable of working with a DVCS system that does not even suppo= rt "eventually consistent". Perhaps because of lack of trying or perhaps becau= se the idea of the mainline version of a project is important to projects. In the past Gnome, Debian, GStreamer, and many others have had a central mainline Git repository and everything was handled as DVCS, with emailed patches. They tended not to support using remotes and merges via that route= , not entirely sure why. GitHub and GitLab supported forking, issues, pull requests, and CI. So many people have found this useful. Not just for havin= g ready made CI on PRs, but because there was a central place that lots of projects were at, there was lots of serendipitous contribution. Gnome, Debi= an, and GStreamer are moving to private GitLab instances. It seems the use of a bare Git repository is not as appealing to these projects as having the support of a centralised system. I think that whilst there are many technical reasons for having an element = of process support at the mainline location favouring the GitHubs and GitLabs = of this Gitty world, a lot of it is about the people and the social system: th= ere is a sense of belonging, a sense of accessibility, and being able to contribute more easily. One of the aspects of the total DVCS is that it can exclude, it is in itsel= f a walled garden, you have to be in the clique to even know the activity is happening. All of this is not just technical, it is socio-technical.=20 =20 --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Jun 07
parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 19:02:31 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 10:17 -0700, H. S. Teoh via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 […]
 
 Exactly!!!  Git was built precisely for decentralized, 
 distributed development.  Anyone should be (and is, if they 
 bothered to put just a tiny amount of effort into it) able to 
 set up a git server and send the URL to prospective 
 collaborators.  Anyone is free to clone the git repo and 
 redistribute that clone to anyone else.  Anyone can create new 
 commits in a local clone and send the URL to another 
 collaborator who can pull the commits.  It should never have 
 become the tool to build walled gardens that inhibit this free 
 sharing of code.
 
I think there is an interesting tension between using a DVCS as a DVCS and no central resource, and thus no mainline version, and using a DVCS in combination with a central resource. In the latter category the central resource may just be the repository acting as the mainline, or, as with GitHub, GitLab, Launchpad, the central resource provides sharing and reviewing support. Very few organisations, except perhaps those that use Fossil, actually use DVCS as a DVCS. Everyone seems to want a public mainline version: the repository that represents the official state of the project. It seems the world is not capable of working with a DVCS system that does not even support "eventually consistent". Perhaps because of lack of trying or perhaps because the idea of the mainline version of a project is important to projects.
Well, as Jonathan says, you have to release a build eventually, and you need a mainline version that you know has all the needed commits to release from. If you have multiple people all releasing their own builds with each build getting a roughly equivalent number of downloads, then a mainline version may not be needed, but I know of no large project like that.
 In the past Gnome, Debian, GStreamer, and many others have had 
 a central mainline Git repository and everything was handled as 
 DVCS, with emailed patches. They tended not to support using 
 remotes and merges via that route, not entirely sure why. 
 GitHub and GitLab supported forking, issues, pull requests, and 
 CI. So many people have found this useful. Not just for having 
 ready made CI on PRs, but because there was a central place 
 that lots of projects were at, there was lots of serendipitous 
 contribution. Gnome, Debian, and GStreamer are moving to 
 private GitLab instances. It seems the use of a bare Git 
 repository is not as appealing to these projects as having the 
 support of a centralised system.
Nobody uses a DVCS alone, even the linux kernel guys have mailing lists and other software they use to coordinate with around git.
 I think that whilst there are many technical reasons for having 
 an element of process support at the mainline location 
 favouring the GitHubs and GitLabs of this Gitty world, a lot of 
 it is about the people and the social system: there is a sense 
 of belonging, a sense of accessibility, and being able to 
 contribute more easily.
There is some of that, but you could reproduce all of that in a technically decentralized manner.
 One of the aspects of the total DVCS is that it can exclude, it 
 is in itself a walled garden, you have to be in the clique to 
 even know the activity is happening.
Right now, yes, mailing lists and bugzilla can be forbidding to the noob, compared to just signing up on github and getting everything at one go. But as Basile's link above points out, there are tools like git-ssb that try decentralize all that: http://git-ssb.celehner.com/%25RPKzL382v2fAia5HuDNHD5kkFdlP7bGvXQApSXqOBwc%3D.sha256
 All of this is not just technical, it is socio-technical.
It is all ultimately technical, but yes, social elements come into play. One big thing that web software like github or trac helps with is reviewing pulls to the main repo. I'm not about to add dozens of remotes to my local repo to review pulls from all the contributors to dmd/druntime/phobos, the github pull review workflow is much easier than the git command-line equivalent. However, it wouldn't be that hard to decentralize most of what github provides by coming up with a standard format to store issues and other discussion in a git repo, as I'm guessing git-ssb does. The only aspect that might present difficulty is that you may not get as nice a web viewer as github provided, as the built-in gitweb is not very good compared to github's web UI. In that way, while many are complaining about using github, the OSS community doing so for all these years may have been optimal, in that as long as a money-losing company was willing to do that work for you for years, why not use it? Where was all that money being lost after all, if not on providing features to users who weren't paying enough to sustain it? Then, once you know whether github's business model works or not, apparently not, you consider moving elsewhere. I don't know why some people are making a big deal about losing data with github, I can't imagine it'd be that hard to scrape. Gitlab has an exporter, you could simply repurpose that for your own uses. You may not get everything, like user permissions or some other internal controls, but you'd get everything that really matters.
Jun 07
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Thursday, June 07, 2018 20:02:31 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 10:17 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce

 wrote:
 […]

 Exactly!!!  Git was built precisely for decentralized, distributed
 development.  Anyone should be (and is, if they bothered to put just a
 tiny amount of effort into it) able to set up a git server and send the
 URL to prospective collaborators.  Anyone is free to clone the git repo
 and redistribute that clone to anyone else.  Anyone can create new
 commits in a local clone and send the URL to another collaborator who
 can pull the commits.  It should never have become the tool to build
 walled gardens that inhibit this free sharing of code.
I think there is an interesting tension between using a DVCS as a DVCS and no central resource, and thus no mainline version, and using a DVCS in combination with a central resource. In the latter category the central resource may just be the repository acting as the mainline, or, as with GitHub, GitLab, Launchpad, the central resource provides sharing and reviewing support. Very few organisations, except perhaps those that use Fossil, actually use DVCS as a DVCS. Everyone seems to want a public mainline version: the repository that represents the official state of the project. It seems the world is not capable of working with a DVCS system that does not even support "eventually consistent". Perhaps because of lack of trying or perhaps because the idea of the mainline version of a project is important to projects. In the past Gnome, Debian, GStreamer, and many others have had a central mainline Git repository and everything was handled as DVCS, with emailed patches. They tended not to support using remotes and merges via that route, not entirely sure why. GitHub and GitLab supported forking, issues, pull requests, and CI. So many people have found this useful. Not just for having ready made CI on PRs, but because there was a central place that lots of projects were at, there was lots of serendipitous contribution. Gnome, Debian, and GStreamer are moving to private GitLab instances. It seems the use of a bare Git repository is not as appealing to these projects as having the support of a centralised system. I think that whilst there are many technical reasons for having an element of process support at the mainline location favouring the GitHubs and GitLabs of this Gitty world, a lot of it is about the people and the social system: there is a sense of belonging, a sense of accessibility, and being able to contribute more easily. One of the aspects of the total DVCS is that it can exclude, it is in itself a walled garden, you have to be in the clique to even know the activity is happening. All of this is not just technical, it is socio-technical.
Honestly, I don't see how it makes sense to release any software without a definitive repo. Decentralized source control systems like git are great in that they allow you to have your own fork and do things locally without needing to talk to any central repo and because having folks be able to fork and muck around with stuff easily is incredibly valuable. But actually releasing software that way is a bit of a mess, and there usually needs to be a main repo where the official version of stuff goes. So, the decentralization is great for collaboration, and it removes the need to communicate with the main repo when you don't actually need to, but it really doesn't remove the need for a central repository for the official version of the project. Whether that central repo needs to be somewhere like github or gitlab or bitbucket or whatever is another matter entirely, but ultimately, I think that the main benefits of DVCS is that it removes the dependency on the central repo from any operations that don't actually need the central repo, not that it removes the need for a central repo, because it really doesn't - not if you want to be organized about releases anyway. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 07