So this is inspired somewhat by a question about somebody wanting to have a non-GitHub way of contributing to Lemmmy. I’ve really enojyed some other discussions on this community so felt somewhat inspired to ask this one too.

And whilst Lemmy is mirrored to a couple of alternatives (a self hosted Gitea and Codeberg) they can’t really be anything more than a mirror and a backup. If one doesn’t want to use GitHub they still can’t realistically contribute without signing up to GitHub and creating issues and PRs.

So what would it take to actually get people away from GitHub and onto alternatives (GitLab, Codeberg, sourcehut)? The situation seems to somewhat parallel the whole Reddit and Twitter thing. Both have/had a huge monopoly on users to the point where it just wasn’t really worth using anything else, at least not if you wanted to be part of a decently sized community.

Other mass migrations

Obviously the difference with Reddit and Twitter is that they both have had their version of “the Event” which cause existing projects (Mastodon, Lemmy amongst others) to suddenly explode in popularity. Has it killed off the originals? No but it has made the alternatives actually viable with enough of a community to sustain them and encourage more to join, even if slowly.

GitHub has had its fair share of controversy, most recently surrounding co-pilot and code scraping but no particular widespread outrage to cause people to leave it in droves.

GitHub is the home of open source?

I think for many GitHub has simply become synonymous with open source. The sheer number of repositories and projects hosted there means that people just use GitHub alone for all of their open source needs and don’t even look at other forges. Not to mention all the services offered - most of the alternatives can offer some of the same features but not all of them. Not only do you get space for your project code itself but you get access to their CI/CD platform, a forum through Discussions, a wiki, a project management tool, static site hosting which is an awful lot for smaller projects like GitLab and community non-profit projects like Codeberg to compete with.

There of course are some people that rely on their GitHub profile and their activity chart in order to get jobs and advance their careers - many of these people I suspect wouldn’t want to fragment their profile by having to split their activity up over multiple profiles.

So why would anyone not want to use GitHub. Quite simply it isn’t really in the spirit of open source is it? Not only is it controlled by Microsoft who haven’t historically been the friendliest towards open source but GitHub itself is closed source. You can’t host your own GitHub and get all the same features it enjoys. It does seem somewhat odd that the biggest vault of open source projects is itself proprietary and completely closed off.

What would need to happen for things to change?

So realistically what could be done about it? What would need to happen in order to entice people off of GitHub? Something arriving in the hopefully not too distant future is forge federation - projects such as Forgefriends, ForgeFed and ForgeFlux aim to try and create a federation of software forges. One of the main issues about having to create different accounts for every single platform goes away as you just stick with the instance you like best (or host your own) and yet still be able to fully interact with software hosted on other platforms. This means that you should be able to interact with a project hosted on, say, Codeberg, from your sourcehut account. You should be able to see issues, PRs etc. just as if you were on the same website.

GitHub, I strongly imagine, would have no intention of joining in order to maintain and protect their walled garden. I just don’t see a world where they would want to join in with federation.

Lastly I just want to add that I’m absolutely not judging anyone for using GitHub. The main project I’m involved with is also still on GitHub for some good reasons. Not only is it intertwined with their ecosystem but it provides services that we just need at this point. We still rely on some of GitHub’s services so we don’t spend our community donations on hosting stuff that we just don’t need to. It lightens the maintenance on us whilst we are still in a very active stage of the project with an awful lot of moving parts. And the bit I hate most, we need to be visible to the community - we aren’t big enough to go to one of the alternative platforms because what community engagement we have might well drop through the floor if people are suddenly forced to make accounts on other services just to log an issue or ask a question. I would love to move to a platform like Codeberg and any personal project I make would probably be hosted there but for a big-ish community project we just cannot justify it. So I am well aware of the attraction of GitHub and what keeps people there. What I want to know is what would be needed to actually break that inertia for projects, such as the one I mentioned, to justify a move away from GitHub - particularly people who may be far less ideological about the open source world.

tl;dr

  • GitHub offer many nice thing
  • Other places have not so many nice thing
  • How other place make people change mind up to move from place with all thing and all people to place with less many people and thing?
  • LedgeDrop@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d say, let’s wait for a catastrophic event at github before we jump ship.

    Git , by its nature, is distributed. If, worse case, github.com went down (without warning). Life would move on, people will have local checkouts of the “important/popular” repos that would be pushed “somewhere else”.

    Yeah, github actions wouldn’t work, build that pull from github repos would need to be refactored, but life would move on.

    • 418teapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem isn’t the version control itself. Obviously git continues to function and I can commit things offline in a plane. What I can’t do is create/review PRs or read/open issues. That’s easy to brush off, but the most egregious thing is the fact that this used to be federated over email!

      All we needed was more user-friendly tooling to make it easier for new college grads to start contributing to FLOSS, but instead of better email based tooling we got the centralized trash that github is today.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Email does lack the ability to edit comments on a PR.

        While editability is “fragile” – that is, someone could log the original unedited comments and make them visible, I think that in general it is true that people favor having that editability over not having it. Reddit has it. The Threadiverse has it.

        It’s also possible to withdraw or close out a PR – having that attached status is handy.

        In terms of doing collaborative work, PRs on GitHub are searchable. While one can theoretically archive a mailing list and add a search engine and could build tools to do all this over email, I don’t think that the git email tools were where the family of collaborative development websites – including some open-source ones – are today. That is, there was legitimately unmet functionality as things stood.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, email doesn’t seem like a particularly good tool. You could do it if you had your mail client do a stupid amount of heavy lifting, but at that point it’s barely a mail client any more. It’s something else entirely that happens to smash email into a communication protocol for itself.

        • Chobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seems less ergonomic for sure. I think all of these things can be quite manageable… But e-mail certainly feels noisy, especially if you’re naively getting everything sent to your inbox directly and you can’t silently edit things or withdraw / close them without making noise for a lot of other people. That said… Sometimes it seems like it’d be kind of nice to just use e-mail for this stuff.

      • LedgeDrop@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You make a valid point regarding losing important contextual information like PR and open bugs.

        However, I don’t think email offers the same level of visibility as we currently have with github workflows.

        There is an creative Git based issue tracker, I used called git-issue. Basically, the entire bug/issue/pr process is captured as yaml (I think) files, which are kept in a dedicated branch.

        When I used it (as I wanted a self-hosted bug tracker), I found it functional but a bit cumbersome. However, I could see someone creating a very nice github like web interface for it.

        • 418teapot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I’ve played with git-issue and agree it’s not ideal. Have you checked out Sourcehut? It is entirely email based but with some pretty great tooling around it to make it more accessible.

          I agree that in a perfect world we have a separate open protocol for all of the non-repository related workflows/data, that has all the features we need. But the nice thing about email is it’s decentralized, and everyone already has it. And in my opinion, with the right tooling built around it, it can get pretty close to the same quality of life as a github PR, but also degrade gracefully without it.

          • LedgeDrop@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the nice thing about email is it’s decentralized, and everyone already has it.

            That is true, but in the case of email as an issue tracker: only the people who have received it will know of its existence (unless it’s mirrored on public facing websites - like Debian does with their issue tracking).

            The thing we’d lose is the “ease of access”. Tbh, I’d see Usenet being a better distribution medium than email for OSS apps… but I really appreciate the intention behind solutions like git-issues: move the issue tracking into the same tools used to track code changes. It, in my opinion, is more in line with K. I. S. S.

    • PupBiru@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      totally agree with that! however, from our experience with reddit and the threadiverse, it would have been nice (not expected!) if there’d been a little bit more of a mature alternative: if we had native apps, more stability, etc…

      since OSS is so damn important, it’d be worth hedging our bets: don’t expect github to implode, but understand that OSS is too important to leave in the hands of a single organisation so we should have reasonable ideas and options for what would be a good federated alternative

      im sure projects that deal with things like privacy and getting around national internet blocking (things that have been removed from github for censorship or “copyright” reasons) would be keen on having options