Sad to see they only use MS GitHub instead of selfhosting something like GitLab. Just another vendor lock-in.
We will continue to use Bugzilla, moz-phab, Phabricator, and Lando.
Although we'll be hosting the repository on GitHub, our contribution workflow will remain unchanged and we will not be accepting Pull Requests at this time.
The cool thing about distributed version control is that it's distributed. It sounds like GitHub will just be a public remote, rather than the place where active development happens.
Since they will not use Github for Pull Requests, bug tracking, or any other bonus feature on top of git, I have to disagree. It would be super easy to change the host of their git repo.
Depends a bit on what the default cloning url will be. If the domain is in control of mozilla, which forwards it to github, then fine, if most people start using the github url, then it is still a vendor lock in, because many people and projects will use it, and that is not so easy to move away.
Update: To the people down-voting my comment, I would love to hear why you either disagree with me, or find that my that my contribution to this discussion is worthless.
The upstream URL of a project or repo is important, because it will be used in other projects, like in build scripts for fetching the sources. If a projects changes that URL in the future, and the old URL is no longer available/functional, all those scripts need to be changed and the old versions of these scripts do not work anymore out of the box.
If the project owns the URL, then can add redirect rules, that might help alleviate some of these issues. I don't think github allows projects that move away from it to do that. So this is a sort of vendor lock-in. The project needs to maintain the repo on github, because they want to break the internet as little as possible.
Honest question - is GitLab really that different of a vendor lock-in over GitHub?
Gitlab can be self-hosted. GitHub is a cloud-only service.
So they could do git.mozilla.com and it would be their own instance of git, on their own hardware (or, probably, from their own AWS account). They control it entirely.
They did host a git server at git.mozilla.org, but took it down years ago.
And you need a team managing it. I doubt that they have not considered it.
You can self-host GitHub. It takes around 32 GB of memory, however.
Wait really? Where?
If you can find the download for GitHub Enterprise, Ruby Concealer is little more than an XOR cipher. Make of that what you will.
It absolutely is. Yes. You can run and maintain it on an own server and it is open core (yeah π₯) using the MIT license - unlike GitHub where you have to rely 100% on the goodwill of Microsoft and everything is closed and locked behind a TOS.
So why not use forejo, which is completely open source?
If your criticism is MS pulling the plug, then Gitlab pulling a Redis/Hashicorp move and re-licensing their core should also be a concern
So why not use forejo, which is completely open source?
Absolutely! Iβd always go the Forgejo route!
The thing is: I donβt see Firefox being hosted with Forgejo. The code base and amount of data might be way too massive. I see Forgejo as a forge for smaller projects.
Is there a reason you think Forgejo is only for smaller projects?
I've never seen larger projects like Firefox hosted with Forgejo.
Probably because it has only existed for 2 years
Gitlab's AGPL so I don't think there's anything stopping you from moving to a self managed instance.
No Gitlab is not AGPL, it is partly MIT and the corporate branch is under a proprietary license
Still better than a fully closed, 100% proprietary, cloud-only Microsoft service.
Where do they mention GH? They only mention git in the post.
nevermind
Although we'll be hosting the repository on GitHub, our contribution workflow
will remain unchanged and we will not be accepting Pull Requests at this time
I read that thing 3 times, how did I miss that?
Damn. Wow, it seems like Mozilla is getting more fired up lately. They are also actively communicating (recent couple of AMAs) and listening to their users (through Mozilla connect and working on much requested features)!
They plan on doing that change since over a year lol
And their build docs are incredibly confusing, I have no idea how distro packagers can do this.
I built Firefox from source for a while, and it just broke after a while.
I'm guessing someone figured it out once, and everyone just copies from them...
I mean they have some form of docs, and I got it to build. But hell even installing mercurial is totally weird.
Btw, you can see the build flags your distro uses from within FF, I think it is about:build
So they're switching from using both Mercurial and Git to just Git... How did they end up using both? Was it just that each had its supporters so they just compromised and made everyone use both?
If you have a bit of time to spare, see this great article for a some history on Mozilla and version control.
This is very detailed π
I would have appreciated going for Codeberg too. This is not so bad as used just for hosting the repo, a future migration away from GH would be a breeze.
They could have self hosted a Forgejo instance but they really went with MS GitHub.
Kind of sad.
I just wish they'd put their mobile releases on a standard release page. I can't use Obtainium with their current GitHub mirror because it's always out of date from the Play Store.
Anyone know if Mozilla ever made a statement on the state of MS's LLM training on Github data? I'm curious if they don't care about having Firefox be part of the dataset or if they just think the benefits of the platform outweigh that.
Pretty sure itβs possible to opt out
Thought I'd forgotten 'bout this comment, didn'tcha? Sorry to say, I'm very good at restarting old discussions instead of sleeping on time.
I tried looking into this again, and although I'm not sure, I don't think you can. Please do comment if you have any insight on this.
I trimmed down the fat and replaced it with "...", but feel free to open the GH terms of use and read the cited sections yourself.
::: spoiler Wall of terms
A. Definitions
The βServiceβ refers to the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub, including any Beta Previews.
Pretty sure this includes Copilot.
βContentβ refers to content featured or displayed through the Website, including without limitation code ...
D. User-Generated Content, 3. Ownership of Content, Right to Post, and License Grants
Because you retain ownership of and responsibility for Your Content, we need you to grant us ... legal permissions, listed in Sections D.4 β D.7. These license grants apply to Your Content. ... You understand that you will not receive any payment for any of the rights granted ... The licenses you grant to us will end when you remove Your Content from our servers, unless other Users have forked it.
(emphasis mine)
License Grant to Us
... You grant us ... right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like ... analyze it on our servers ...
(emphasis mine)
Moral Rights
You retain all moral rights to Your Content that you upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service, including the rights of integrity and attribution. However, you waive these rights and agree not to assert them against us, to enable us to reasonably exercise the rights granted in Section D.4, but not otherwise.
To the extent this agreement is not enforceable by applicable law, you grant GitHub the rights we need to use Your Content without attribution and to make reasonable adaptations of Your Content as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service.
(emphasis mine)
:::
While there is this option on the GH settings for Copilot:
Allow GitHub to use my code snippets from the code editor for product improvements
...I find it entirely unclear what, precisely, is being disallowed when this is unchecked. Surrounding text and links are unhelpful.
Also, if I understand the relevant law properly here, many AI companies are likely betting on training being fair use. Your rights, your power to dictate terms in a LICENSE, are thus irrelevant if fair use applies. I lack the background to tell how the COPIED Act, were it to pass, would change this in regard to code, if at all.
Finally, there's that question... do you actually trust companies to follow the rules in good faith?
Oh no, they want to move to Microsoft hosting. I hope not.
Do they? Git isn't tied to GitHub. There is gitlab, Gitea, and forgejo that do the same thing.
In the link, it says:
Although we'll be hosting the repository on GitHub, our contribution workflow
will remain unchanged and we will not be accepting Pull Requests at this time
Sad to see they only use MS GitHub instead of selfhosting something like GitLab. Just another vendor lock-in.
The cool thing about distributed version control is that it's distributed. It sounds like GitHub will just be a public remote, rather than the place where active development happens.
Since they will not use Github for Pull Requests, bug tracking, or any other bonus feature on top of git, I have to disagree. It would be super easy to change the host of their git repo.
Depends a bit on what the default cloning url will be. If the domain is in control of mozilla, which forwards it to github, then fine, if most people start using the github url, then it is still a vendor lock in, because many people and projects will use it, and that is not so easy to move away.
Update: To the people down-voting my comment, I would love to hear why you either disagree with me, or find that my that my contribution to this discussion is worthless.
The upstream URL of a project or repo is important, because it will be used in other projects, like in build scripts for fetching the sources. If a projects changes that URL in the future, and the old URL is no longer available/functional, all those scripts need to be changed and the old versions of these scripts do not work anymore out of the box.
If the project owns the URL, then can add redirect rules, that might help alleviate some of these issues. I don't think github allows projects that move away from it to do that. So this is a sort of vendor lock-in. The project needs to maintain the repo on github, because they want to break the internet as little as possible.
Honest question - is GitLab really that different of a vendor lock-in over GitHub?
Gitlab can be self-hosted. GitHub is a cloud-only service.
So they could do git.mozilla.com and it would be their own instance of git, on their own hardware (or, probably, from their own AWS account). They control it entirely.
They did host a git server at git.mozilla.org, but took it down years ago.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1277297
And you need a team managing it. I doubt that they have not considered it.
You can self-host GitHub. It takes around 32 GB of memory, however.
Wait really? Where?
If you can find the download for GitHub Enterprise, Ruby Concealer is little more than an XOR cipher. Make of that what you will.
It absolutely is. Yes. You can run and maintain it on an own server and it is open core (yeah π₯) using the MIT license - unlike GitHub where you have to rely 100% on the goodwill of Microsoft and everything is closed and locked behind a TOS.
So why not use forejo, which is completely open source?
If your criticism is MS pulling the plug, then Gitlab pulling a Redis/Hashicorp move and re-licensing their core should also be a concern
Absolutely! Iβd always go the Forgejo route!
The thing is: I donβt see Firefox being hosted with Forgejo. The code base and amount of data might be way too massive. I see Forgejo as a forge for smaller projects.
Is there a reason you think Forgejo is only for smaller projects?
I've never seen larger projects like Firefox hosted with Forgejo.
Probably because it has only existed for 2 years
Gitlab's AGPL so I don't think there's anything stopping you from moving to a self managed instance.
No Gitlab is not AGPL, it is partly MIT and the corporate branch is under a proprietary license
Still better than a fully closed, 100% proprietary, cloud-only Microsoft service.
Where do they mention GH? They only mention git in the post.nevermind
I read that thing 3 times, how did I miss that?
Damn. Wow, it seems like Mozilla is getting more fired up lately. They are also actively communicating (recent couple of AMAs) and listening to their users (through Mozilla connect and working on much requested features)!
They plan on doing that change since over a year lol
And their build docs are incredibly confusing, I have no idea how distro packagers can do this.
I built Firefox from source for a while, and it just broke after a while.
I'm guessing someone figured it out once, and everyone just copies from them...
I mean they have some form of docs, and I got it to build. But hell even installing mercurial is totally weird.
Btw, you can see the build flags your distro uses from within FF, I think it is
about:buildSo they're switching from using both Mercurial and Git to just Git... How did they end up using both? Was it just that each had its supporters so they just compromised and made everyone use both?
If you have a bit of time to spare, see this great article for a some history on Mozilla and version control.
This is very detailed π I would have appreciated going for Codeberg too. This is not so bad as used just for hosting the repo, a future migration away from GH would be a breeze.
They could have self hosted a Forgejo instance but they really went with MS GitHub. Kind of sad.
I just wish they'd put their mobile releases on a standard release page. I can't use Obtainium with their current GitHub mirror because it's always out of date from the Play Store.
Anyone know if Mozilla ever made a statement on the state of MS's LLM training on Github data? I'm curious if they don't care about having Firefox be part of the dataset or if they just think the benefits of the platform outweigh that.
Pretty sure itβs possible to opt out
Thought I'd forgotten 'bout this comment, didn'tcha? Sorry to say, I'm very good at restarting old discussions instead of sleeping on time.
I tried looking into this again, and although I'm not sure, I don't think you can. Please do comment if you have any insight on this.
I trimmed down the fat and replaced it with "...", but feel free to open the GH terms of use and read the cited sections yourself.
::: spoiler Wall of terms
Pretty sure this includes Copilot.
(emphasis mine)
(emphasis mine)
(emphasis mine) :::
While there is this option on the GH settings for Copilot:
...I find it entirely unclear what, precisely, is being disallowed when this is unchecked. Surrounding text and links are unhelpful.
Also, if I understand the relevant law properly here, many AI companies are likely betting on training being fair use. Your rights, your power to dictate terms in a
LICENSE, are thus irrelevant if fair use applies. I lack the background to tell how the COPIED Act, were it to pass, would change this in regard to code, if at all.Finally, there's that question... do you actually trust companies to follow the rules in good faith?
Oh no, they want to move to Microsoft hosting. I hope not.
Do they? Git isn't tied to GitHub. There is gitlab, Gitea, and forgejo that do the same thing.
In the link, it says:
I read that thing 3 times, how did I miss that?