Moving to git is nice but I don't understand why they don't self-host a gitlab instance.
Imho the main argument for github is that it lowers the hurdle for new ane ad-hoc contributions like issues.
I'm problably too lazy to registsr a new account for your instance just to open a bug report.
I'd love a federated git/issue/wiki thing
Are they moving issues or just code storage to GitHub?
Code storage. They're keeping bugzilla.
💀
They're going to continue using Bugzilla for bug reports.
It wouldn't make it more difficult than with mercurial, which isn't supported by github either.
In my opinion that sounds like a plus. People that are too lazy to register an account to put in a code merge request or report a bug aren't going to be writing quality code or quality bug reports.
Yes but knowing of a bug is better than not knowing of a bug
Working in a busy codebase for a long time when I have to spend time a non-trivial amount of time triaging through tickets I can't reproduce that is taking time away from legitimate bug and request tickets I can be working on. It can seriously lead to burnout.
You don't have to fix every issue, there are also other volunteers who might look at it.
If the reproducible instructions aren't clear enough or are missing, just ask for more info. If they can't deliver on that, close it or just move on and other people might take care of it
Speak for yourself, I've been prepared to submit detailed bug reports before the process in place to do so turned me off.
I did speak for myself. I said "In my opinion".
GitHub will just serve as code mirror. Patches and bugs will still go through Mozilla's usually channels.
but I don’t understand why they don’t self-host
Why would anyone self-host a FLOSS project? Trade secrets is not a concern, nor is it barring access to the source code repository. Why would anyone waste their resources managing a service that adds no value beyond a third-party service like GitHub?
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
So Microsoft has access to Firefox's source code. So what? Isn't the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?
Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is. I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them and instead got this move. Well... I guess this is like unique browser ID that each installation has or the fact that it contacts a 3rd party analytics company no matter your settings - people start by complaining and eventually even say it is right. lol so much for privacy and whatnot.
Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is.
I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them (...)
You only speak for yourself. You do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of anyone, including Firefox users such as myself. Keep your personal opinions as personal. You have the right to have a personal opinion, but you do not have the right to pass them off as anyone else's.
Your statement is fundamentally wrong on many levels, including the fact that it goes against the fundamental premise of FLOSS which is tha
What is it in my statement that goes against that? Nothing. Just read Mozilla's Manifesto and then tell me how hosting code on GitHub doesn't go against Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7. Mozzila's missing is "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all" and by pushing their code on Github they're making it more popular, essentially perpetuating Microsoft's dominant market position that is very likely to result in even more abuse, more ecosystems and less open solutions in the future. There's no way to justify a company with Mozilla's resources doing this.
Nothing. Just read Mozilla’s Manifesto
Your trolling skills are subpar but given this is a lazy weekend I guess I'll bite just for the entertaining value.
Let's go through "Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7", shall we?
Principle 2 The internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
Making source code available through GitHub is a realization of Principle 2. You got it exactly backwards.
Principle 3 The internet must enrich the lives of individual human beings.
I don't even know what could possess you to believe that making a software project available through GitHub would jeopardize this. Anyway.
Principle 7 Free and open source software promotes the development of the internet as a public resource.
That's what making FLOSS projects available to the public through GitHub does. GitHub, by providing managed hosting to Mozilla to host Firefox's project tree and making it available to the public, is unquestionably meeting this goal, both in its letter and its spirit.
You need to put some effort into finding things to be outraged about.
I think they were making a joke
I think they were making a joke
The missing /s, coupled with some absurd comments on this thread, make it hard to tell apart the jokes from the activists.
That's fair, but with that said, I'm gonna eat your ass
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Go on...
Because while you do have control (and "copies") of the source code repository, that's not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, ...
If Microsoft decided to fuck you over you'd have a hard time migrating the "community" around that source code somewhere else.
Obviously depends on what features you are using, but for example losing all tickets would be problematic for any projects.
Apparently Mozilla won't be even accepting PRs there so it doesn't matter much.
What if you self host in AWS and Amazon decides to fuck you over? What if you decide to self from home and your ISP decides fuck you over? What if? So many what ifs... How do you even live in this world?
Yeah like, wtf
When you use a cloud solution (and especially one with a vendor lock in like Amazon) then yeah, you are fucked there too and I'd question why you did it in the first place.
If you have your own infrastructure - be it a server at home or whatever - then you can always just move it elsewhere, get some other ISP, whatever. There is no lock-in. Inconvenience, sure, but you can migrate elsewhere. That's just not true about all the other things mentioned, or the friction would be much higher.
Have you actually used anything cloud? Because there's literally no friction to move things around. Unless you decide to use proprietary features.
With AWS especially there is a shitton of proprietary stuff. Most of the friction is in knowledge however; the cloud environments differ, are configured differently, have different limitations and caveats, etc. Someone who has only ever worked with AWS will have to learn a lot of things anew if they switch. Hell there's a reason why "AWS engineer" is a dedicated role in some companies.
Now, if you only manually set up some VMs and configure them like you would a regular server then sure, it's easy to migrate. But when you are missing 99% of the features of the cloud environment are you actually using it?
For me the purpose of the cloud is the ability to deploy my projects on rented infrastructure independently of the provider. Tools like Terraform and Kubernetes help with the abstraction of providers.
As for proprietary features I prefer to use open source alternatives like Supabase, which I then can deploy to any cloud and migrate between clouds if needed.
Well then you aren't probably taking advantage of most of the stuff AWS offers and is actually really good for. Which isn't really criticism, but then I wouldn't really call it cloud? It's more like just infrastructure as a service.
Infrastructure as a service is literally the definition of a cloud. Everything is just bells and whistles.
Because while you do have control (and “copies”) of the source code repository, that’s not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, …
The announcement to drop Mercurial quite clearly states that their workflow won't change and that GitHub pull requests are not considered a part of their workflow.
Also, that's entirely irrelevant to start with. Either you care about software freedom and software quality, or you don't. If you care about software freedom you care about having free and unrestricted access to FLOSS projects such as Firefox, which GitHub clearly provides. If you care about software quality you'd care about the Firefox team picking the absolute best tools for the job that they themselves picked.
Or, you know, Gitea or such.
I keep hearing people only on Lemmy bring up Gitea but I haven't really heard of it otherwise. What's the appeal and what's keeping it locked away with the Lemmy community?
“For a long time Firefox Desktop development has supported both Mercurial and Git users. This dual SCM requirement places a significant burden on teams which are already stretched thin in parts. We have made the decision to move Firefox development to Git.”
But a few lines later:
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
So I don't know if you meant that the focus of the change wasn't GH or that they weren't using GH at all, but it seems like the latter is untrue.
you meant that the focus of the change wasn’t GH
They are dropping Mercurial and focusing on Git. Incidentally, they happen to host the Git project on GitHub. GitHub is used for hosting, and they don't even use basic features such as pull requests.
Again, this is really not about GitHub at all.
This is the crucial detail that everyone is missing.
It's the same as with the Linux kernel GitHub mirror.
The repository will be hosted on GitHub, though the move is expected to take “at least six months before the migration begins.”
Another major opensource project that chooses a proprietary hosting platform 🤷
Let's be honest here, at least like 98% of the popular OSS is on GitHub at this point. You don't have to like it, but it's how things are
Doesn't mean that they have to continue putting stuff there. But oh well, maybe once ForgeFed becomes a real thing, things might change a little.
People use the most convenient way to collaborate, and that's for me currently Github. Really hope, some day a better alternative with ForgeFed becomes reality.
It does. OSS needs visibility, it needs contributions
GitHub's community and discoverability features really help with that, as much as it sucks that they got acquired by Microsoft
GitHub is just serving as public code mirror, it's not going to be their hosting platform.
Using and financially contributing to Codberg seems like a good next step to take. Doubt they will though.
Ah! 😣 Why not nest or self-hosted pijul!?
It's not battle tested on massive projects nor does it have the prior mindshare git has. It doesn't have a lot of tooling either. (Does any CI/CD system support pijul?) It has nice properties, but ultimately git with all it's terrible warts is well understood.
CI/CD
Pijul as git or hg or any other is a VCS, so what are you talking about?
If you mean web-service like GitHub with social things and CI/CD services, so yes, nest have CI/CD with nix. But mostly you shouldn’t host your huge project on the Nest because, as I’m absolutely sure, you as anyone other should create your own host (public or private) to support decentralization to prevent github-like centralization situation. Pijul was created with decentralization in first place in mind.
Not tested with big projects in production
Not publicly. Many private projects, personal and in-company, that uses pijul are existing. Personally I have one HUGE personal. Also I worked for two companies where pijul is used.
Seems to my mistake. You question is about CI/CD services that supports Pijul. So yes, almost zero.
But it’s like ouroboros. Just use pijul more then git and talk about it, and services will support it soon.
Neither has reached 1.0. They're perpetually unstable.
Chromium has a mirror on GitHub and it's fine. While it feels a little strange to have just one mirror (on GitHub), after moving to git entirely, nobody is stopping to them from hosting a GitLab mirror.
Cool now I can actually check it out. Tried to previously but my connection failed about an hour into the clone. --depth=1 --shallow-submodules --recurse-submodules should really be given its own command in git. Not really sure why'd they choose MS as their host though.
Moving to git is nice but I don't understand why they don't self-host a gitlab instance.
Imho the main argument for github is that it lowers the hurdle for new ane ad-hoc contributions like issues. I'm problably too lazy to registsr a new account for your instance just to open a bug report.
I'd love a federated git/issue/wiki thing
Are they moving issues or just code storage to GitHub?
Code storage. They're keeping bugzilla.
💀
They're going to continue using Bugzilla for bug reports.
It wouldn't make it more difficult than with mercurial, which isn't supported by github either.
In my opinion that sounds like a plus. People that are too lazy to register an account to put in a code merge request or report a bug aren't going to be writing quality code or quality bug reports.
Yes but knowing of a bug is better than not knowing of a bug
Working in a busy codebase for a long time when I have to spend time a non-trivial amount of time triaging through tickets I can't reproduce that is taking time away from legitimate bug and request tickets I can be working on. It can seriously lead to burnout.
You don't have to fix every issue, there are also other volunteers who might look at it.
If the reproducible instructions aren't clear enough or are missing, just ask for more info. If they can't deliver on that, close it or just move on and other people might take care of it
Speak for yourself, I've been prepared to submit detailed bug reports before the process in place to do so turned me off.
I did speak for myself. I said "In my opinion".
GitHub will just serve as code mirror. Patches and bugs will still go through Mozilla's usually channels.
Why would anyone self-host a FLOSS project? Trade secrets is not a concern, nor is it barring access to the source code repository. Why would anyone waste their resources managing a service that adds no value beyond a third-party service like GitHub?
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
So Microsoft has access to Firefox's source code. So what? Isn't the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?
Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is. I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them and instead got this move. Well... I guess this is like unique browser ID that each installation has or the fact that it contacts a 3rd party analytics company no matter your settings - people start by complaining and eventually even say it is right. lol so much for privacy and whatnot.
Your statement is fundamentally wrong on many levels, including the fact that it goes against the fundamental premise of FLOSS which is that "the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
You only speak for yourself. You do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of anyone, including Firefox users such as myself. Keep your personal opinions as personal. You have the right to have a personal opinion, but you do not have the right to pass them off as anyone else's.
What is it in my statement that goes against that? Nothing. Just read Mozilla's Manifesto and then tell me how hosting code on GitHub doesn't go against Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7. Mozzila's missing is "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all" and by pushing their code on Github they're making it more popular, essentially perpetuating Microsoft's dominant market position that is very likely to result in even more abuse, more ecosystems and less open solutions in the future. There's no way to justify a company with Mozilla's resources doing this.
Your trolling skills are subpar but given this is a lazy weekend I guess I'll bite just for the entertaining value.
Let's go through "Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7", shall we?
Making source code available through GitHub is a realization of Principle 2. You got it exactly backwards.
I don't even know what could possess you to believe that making a software project available through GitHub would jeopardize this. Anyway.
That's what making FLOSS projects available to the public through GitHub does. GitHub, by providing managed hosting to Mozilla to host Firefox's project tree and making it available to the public, is unquestionably meeting this goal, both in its letter and its spirit.
You need to put some effort into finding things to be outraged about.
I think they were making a joke
The missing /s, coupled with some absurd comments on this thread, make it hard to tell apart the jokes from the activists.
That's fair, but with that said, I'm gonna eat your ass
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Go on...
Because while you do have control (and "copies") of the source code repository, that's not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, ...
If Microsoft decided to fuck you over you'd have a hard time migrating the "community" around that source code somewhere else.
Obviously depends on what features you are using, but for example losing all tickets would be problematic for any projects.
Apparently Mozilla won't be even accepting PRs there so it doesn't matter much.
What if you self host in AWS and Amazon decides to fuck you over? What if you decide to self from home and your ISP decides fuck you over? What if? So many what ifs... How do you even live in this world?
Yeah like, wtf
When you use a cloud solution (and especially one with a vendor lock in like Amazon) then yeah, you are fucked there too and I'd question why you did it in the first place.
If you have your own infrastructure - be it a server at home or whatever - then you can always just move it elsewhere, get some other ISP, whatever. There is no lock-in. Inconvenience, sure, but you can migrate elsewhere. That's just not true about all the other things mentioned, or the friction would be much higher.
Have you actually used anything cloud? Because there's literally no friction to move things around. Unless you decide to use proprietary features.
With AWS especially there is a shitton of proprietary stuff. Most of the friction is in knowledge however; the cloud environments differ, are configured differently, have different limitations and caveats, etc. Someone who has only ever worked with AWS will have to learn a lot of things anew if they switch. Hell there's a reason why "AWS engineer" is a dedicated role in some companies.
Now, if you only manually set up some VMs and configure them like you would a regular server then sure, it's easy to migrate. But when you are missing 99% of the features of the cloud environment are you actually using it?
For me the purpose of the cloud is the ability to deploy my projects on rented infrastructure independently of the provider. Tools like Terraform and Kubernetes help with the abstraction of providers.
As for proprietary features I prefer to use open source alternatives like Supabase, which I then can deploy to any cloud and migrate between clouds if needed.
Well then you aren't probably taking advantage of most of the stuff AWS offers and is actually really good for. Which isn't really criticism, but then I wouldn't really call it cloud? It's more like just infrastructure as a service.
Infrastructure as a service is literally the definition of a cloud. Everything is just bells and whistles.
The announcement to drop Mercurial quite clearly states that their workflow won't change and that GitHub pull requests are not considered a part of their workflow.
Also, that's entirely irrelevant to start with. Either you care about software freedom and software quality, or you don't. If you care about software freedom you care about having free and unrestricted access to FLOSS projects such as Firefox, which GitHub clearly provides. If you care about software quality you'd care about the Firefox team picking the absolute best tools for the job that they themselves picked.
Or, you know, Gitea or such.
I keep hearing people only on Lemmy bring up Gitea but I haven't really heard of it otherwise. What's the appeal and what's keeping it locked away with the Lemmy community?
Money most likely.
Slightly confusing title here. A less confusing title would be "Mozilla drops support for Mercurial, moves Firefox repository to GitHub".
It's not even about GitHub at all. Taken straight out of the announcement:
But a few lines later:
So I don't know if you meant that the focus of the change wasn't GH or that they weren't using GH at all, but it seems like the latter is untrue.
They are dropping Mercurial and focusing on Git. Incidentally, they happen to host the Git project on GitHub. GitHub is used for hosting, and they don't even use basic features such as pull requests.
Again, this is really not about GitHub at all.
This is the crucial detail that everyone is missing.
It's the same as with the Linux kernel GitHub mirror.
Another major opensource project that chooses a proprietary hosting platform 🤷
Let's be honest here, at least like 98% of the popular OSS is on GitHub at this point. You don't have to like it, but it's how things are
Doesn't mean that they have to continue putting stuff there. But oh well, maybe once ForgeFed becomes a real thing, things might change a little.
People use the most convenient way to collaborate, and that's for me currently Github. Really hope, some day a better alternative with ForgeFed becomes reality.
It does. OSS needs visibility, it needs contributions
GitHub's community and discoverability features really help with that, as much as it sucks that they got acquired by Microsoft
GitHub is just serving as public code mirror, it's not going to be their hosting platform.
Using and financially contributing to Codberg seems like a good next step to take. Doubt they will though.
Ah! 😣 Why not nest or self-hosted pijul!?
It's not battle tested on massive projects nor does it have the prior mindshare git has. It doesn't have a lot of tooling either. (Does any CI/CD system support pijul?) It has nice properties, but ultimately git with all it's terrible warts is well understood.
Pijul as git or hg or any other is a VCS, so what are you talking about? If you mean web-service like GitHub with social things and CI/CD services, so yes, nest have CI/CD with nix. But mostly you shouldn’t host your huge project on the Nest because, as I’m absolutely sure, you as anyone other should create your own host (public or private) to support decentralization to prevent github-like centralization situation. Pijul was created with decentralization in first place in mind.
Not publicly. Many private projects, personal and in-company, that uses pijul are existing. Personally I have one HUGE personal. Also I worked for two companies where pijul is used.
Seems to my mistake. You question is about CI/CD services that supports Pijul. So yes, almost zero. But it’s like ouroboros. Just use pijul more then git and talk about it, and services will support it soon.
Neither has reached 1.0. They're perpetually unstable.
Chromium has a mirror on GitHub and it's fine. While it feels a little strange to have just one mirror (on GitHub), after moving to git entirely, nobody is stopping to them from hosting a GitLab mirror.
Cool now I can actually check it out. Tried to previously but my connection failed about an hour into the clone. --depth=1 --shallow-submodules --recurse-submodules should really be given its own command in git. Not really sure why'd they choose MS as their host though.