Github vs. Email Aliases
Github vs. Email Aliases
Github dislikes email "aliases" so much that they will shadow ban your otherwise normal activities for months, and once flagged, support will request not only a "valid" email domain but also that you remove the "alias" email from the account completely.
You're viewing a single thread.
fuck github. use a different git site, there are plenty!
Github is unfortunately the premier platform for collaborating with others to build FOSS. Until alternative forges support federation, any other forge is usually a dead end.
Huh, federated Git sounds nice.
Federated Git has been a thing ever since git was conceived:
git send-emailThey mean like I want to be able to open an issue on your instance using an account on my instance. Forjero is working in this
The mailing list or maintainer email can accept your issues. You don’t have to have a code forge.
Theres a reason people do.
Sure. I love being able to browse code without checking out your bloated monorepo, but it isn’t a requirement.
I mean more about the features that forges provide, not just a WUI for browsing code. Namely: tracking hundreds of issues, PRs, etc
There are several independent options for all of those that, while they suck to go to a different site, often do a much better job than the code forge—think how Gerrit makes PRs look foolish, Bugzilla, Trac, Trello, etc. even the humble mailing list. What’s also important to note is a separate servdce offers different (or even better) organization options. Say you wanted a “polyrepo”… well, new you need a separate issues/review for every repository which often doesn’t fit as concerns can apply to mulitple repos (which now that I think about it might be one of those pressures on folks to create monorepos due to tooling lock-in choices from certain forges). That’s not to say there isn’t a cost/benefit to losing the integration of a central spot or less servers to deploy, but it very well could mean that a small orchestra of independent services could better suit a project compared to opting into every feature a code forge is offering.
That is to say, the one feature you see in all code forges—even the simple ones like cgit—is the ability to browse code/commits.
'premier'
GitHub has 28 million public repos
Gitlab is has less than an order of magnitude as many Under a million in 2020, and nearly 80% without FOSS license.
Is it everyone’s favorite, or best, or most feature rich. Nah. Is it where the FOSS projects are. Yes.
Is this why Freedesktop, GNOME, KDE, Haskell, & others self-host their GitLab community editions? These must not be the real FOSS projects.
Sure, self-hosting is a great option for very large projects, but a random python library to help with an analytics workflow isn’t going to self-host. Those projects, along with 27,999,990 others have chosen GitHub, often times explicitly to reduce the barrier to contribution.
Also, all of those examples are built on thousands of other FOSS projects, 99% of which aren’t self-hosting. This is the same as arguing only Amazon is a bookseller and ignoring the thousands of independent book publishers creating the books Amazon is selling.
This isn’t to say every project should self-host, but that they could self-host. And if you don’t want to self-host, you can join groups like Notabug, or a server hosted by a foundation like Codeberg, or the privately-held SourceHut, or even the open-core GitLab with its free tier (tho publicly-traded, most of the source is open & one can run the community edition if they wish). To assume if not self-hosted GitLab CE, then one must use a closed-source, US-based, publicly-traded, megacorporate, social media + code forge platform that’s trying to monopolize the developer tooling space is a false dichotomy.
The pull request model Microsoft GitHub force on users ends up being a colossal waste of everyone’s time & it’s the only model offered. It’s also a social media platform which encourages star hacking, READMEs that are actually RENDERMEs, focusing too much on making one’s graph green, etc. that are bad for project quality & mental health IMO. This doesn’t sound like a “premier” platform but the result of lock-in & network effect. The way to break is to go host elsewhere… & since Git is a distributed version control system, this should be encouraged.
Or SourceHut, or self-host cgit or Forgejo. Hell, why run Git when Darcs & Pijul are awesome.
Because the projects I want to contribute to are on Github, not some other forge. Also, I don't want to create accounts on dozens of forges; each with their own settings and whatever; I also don't want to have to put contributors to my projects through that, so if I want external contributors, Github is pretty much my only choice.
I don't like it but until federation between forges is a thing, Github it is.
Yeah, they're gatekeepers. We know. Even EU regulators have noticed and are finally making baby steps on cracking down on them.
Though just as with Twitter and Reddit, we need a resilient decentral OSS alternative for this to work. That's in the works as we speak but it's not here yet. It's like trying to give up Reddit 3 years a go; there was no viable alternative.