Linux @lemmy.ml Chewy @discuss.tchncs.de 12 mo. ago

Firefox Development Is Moving From Mercurial To Git

groups.google.com Firefox Development Is Moving From Mercurial To Git

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.

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

We're still working through the planning stages, but we're expecting at least six months before the migration begins

APPROACH

In order to deliver gains into the hands of our engineers as early as possible, the work will be split into two components: developer-facing first, followed by piecemeal migration of backend infrastructure.

Phase One - Developer Facing

We'll switch the primary repository from Mercurial to Git, at the same time removing support for Mercurial on developers' workstations. At this point you'll need to use Git locally, and will continue to use moz-phab to submit patches for review.

All changes will land on the Git repository, which will be unidirectionally synchronised into our existing Mercurial infrastructure.

Phase Two - Infrastructure

Respective teams will work on migrating infrastructure that sits atop Mercurial to Git. This will happen in an incremental manner rather than all at once.

By the end of this phase we will have completely removed support of Mercurial from our infrastructure.

Firefox @lemmy.ml pnutzh4x0r @lemmy.ndlug.org 12 mo. ago

Firefox Development Is Moving From Mercurial To Git

groups.google.com /a/mozilla.org/g/firefox-dev/c/QnfydsDj48o/m/8WadV0_dBQAJ

Hacker News @derp.foo haxor @derp.foo

BOT

12 mo. ago

Firefox Development Is Moving from Mercurial to Git

groups.google.com /a/mozilla.org/g/firefox-dev/c/QnfydsDj48o/m/8WadV0_dBQAJ

76 comments

Although we’ll be hosting the repository on GitHub

Why aren't they using a self-hosted instance of Gitea? This makes no sense move to Github of all places.
- Could be familiarity? I saw an article go by recently about how projects that aren't on GitHub suffer from lack of contributions. Although that matters more for smaller projects, Mozilla is a beast and could probably pull people off GitHub if it wanted to.
  
  Also if anyone should be trying to build up an alternative to GitHub, it should be Mozilla
  
  If you are at a skill level, where you can meaningfully contribute to a project like this, registering for an alternative git provider should not be an obstacle
  
  I agree with this in a lot of cases, but I'm not sure about this case - Mozilla won't be accepting PRs over GitHub from what I can tell.
  
  Git desperately needs something like activity pub. That's how it should have been from the beginning
  
  Permanently Deleted
- Agreed. They could've hosted nearly any git forge since they'll keep using bugzilla and other workflows as is.
- They already use GitHub for a bunch of other projects. See https://github.com/mozilla/ and https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/
- It’s the most widely used platform that the most people are familiar with that they get to use likely for free. Newer projects of theirs are also hosted there. Why would you say it makes no sense?
- Hosting the public repo? I heard that the GH repo is just a mirror
Out of all the possible Git choices, they chose one of the worst options. I am very curious about the reasoning for that. Could have been a Mozilla-hosted Gitlab instance, or something else like Gitea
- Why do you say GitHub is the worst choice, out of curiosity?
  
  Especially lately, incredibly poor performance, and constant outages. Plus if you're an owner of a private repository, I don't want them to train their asshole AI based on my code, without my knowledge
- Permanently Deleted
Would have been amazing if they federated with Forgejo and supported federated git like they're doing with mastodon.
Permanently Deleted
- I agree that PRs are problematic, but that doesn't make GitHub "trash".
  
  Also, that dude is so obnoxious and really seems to like to make broad generalizations of his opinion like it's fact.
  
  and really seems to like to make broad generalizations of his opinion like it's fact.
  
  None of what Brodie said is baseless, even if some are more opinion than fact. He sight's sources for a reason.
  
  I’m just curious, why are PRs worse on GitHub compared to other git hosting services?
- ... which is part of why they aren't using GitHubs pull request feature to land changes?
  
  "at this time"
  
  Meaning they're planning/considering to in the future.
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  
  GitHub is Trash
  
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Mozilla being Mozilla, I'd guess. They should have gone sel-hosted with sourcehut, or at least gitlab. Or if not self-hosted, the choice should have been at the least gitlab or better, given it allows to chose DCO over CLA. But perhaps not everyone cares... I remember when gitlab introduced DCO, and how that helped debian and gnome to migrate to gitlab. After allowing DCO, other projects migrated as well.

I'm not that fan of gitlab, and I'd prefer sourcehut for open source projects, but if wanting something closer to github, then gitlab might be the answer. But Mozilla is a corp, maybe they don't care much about these things, and as a corp, perhaps they were looking for CLA sort of contribution any ways...
- I also think gitlab hosted by Mozilla Foundation would have been a better solution than github.
  
  Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation, so their incentives aren't that of a corporation but a non-profit.
  
  I would love to see the Mozzilla foundation double down on ActivityPub and host a Forgejo instance or work with Codeberg for hosting.
  
  I wonder how much Github being the primary place for FOSS source code limits people around the world from joining the movement.
I wonder if the same is going to be true of Thunderbird. Thunderbird actually requires you use Mercurial to contribute at all, rather than managing both git and Mercurial.

That being said...it's kind of odd to me how swiftly Mozilla of all companies/orgs is to embrace a code forge hosted by Microsoft for their main software. Surreal, even.
I'm amazed people are still using Mercurial. I worked on a few hg projects about a decade ago and it wasn't a very good experience. It was easy for people who used subversion, but if you were even halfway familiar with git you just missed a lot of functionality.
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

Whyyyyy? Why github?
- Reviewing PRs costs money/time
  
  Edit: added "Why github?"
Wtf is wrong with gitlab...
- Nothing, it works fine.
  
  Then why didn't Firefox use their power to support a git that's not owned by Microsoft?
It’s rather bold of many of the commenters in this thread to assume they know the needs of Mozilla and their developers rather than those people themselves. GitHub makes complete sense, even if it doesn’t live up to some people’s desires for free software purity.
I wonder if they'll consider Codeberg as their future Git host of choice. GitHub is less than ideal in terms of digital sovereignty, GitLab also has some questionable leadership. Codeberg seems like the most solid alternative to these so far.
This is great. Honestly it is the best option.
Dang, I was really hoping that they would stop using bugzilla and switch to something like GitHub/GitLab/Gitea issues instead. Perhaps also put things like feature requests there as well and have one place to contribute to Firefox

You've viewed 76 comments.