Eevee being on-point as always: https://twitter.com/eevee/status/1410037309848752128
TL;DR — GitHub trained their new coding AI on Open Source projects, making everything it writes a derivative work, but somehow they've decided that AI is a magical black-box and you probably can't afford to sue to enforce your rights anyways.
Maybe a cooperatively run code hosting service is what I should be doing. Anyone interested?
@nicksellen Codeberg I wanted to use, but no CI is a complete dealbreaker (I know they're working on it, but it's been a long time and I'll believe it when I see it). git.coop uses GitLab which is possibly the worst software I've ever used, but I do appreciate that they run it cooperatively. I'm just picky I guess.
@edsu @nicksellen I can't think of anything specific now that it's not right in front of me of course, but every second of using it was just terrible (I used it for a few projects several times and I kept thinking it couldn't be as bad as I remmbered, but it always was). Everything was slow, the UI was a massive maze of complicated options, it did everything under the sun and none of it well, configuring it was a nightmare, CI was too complicated all the tools were hard to use, etc.
Several successful floss projects use Gitlab, and they seem ok with it.
Sometimes I think switching to something else is so difficult not because the other thing is shit, but because through the usage of the old we got conditioned that things need to be like this and that. I don't know, maybe that's nonsense in your case.
So if one doesn't like to contribute to Microsoft politics, there aren't many options to choose.
Personally I go with what exists, rather then hoping for the perfect solution to arise.
@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen I dunno, Gitea and GitHub and Sourcehut and Gerrit are also doing the same things, but they don't seem to have this same problem. I mean, they have their flaws, I just don't dread using them the way I do GitLab. Maybe I'm ultra sensitive to things that don't just do one thing and do it well though.
@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen Sure, but it's not doing everything under the sun the way GitLab is (though it's getting there; I'm somewhat annoyed by most of their newer features, but even so it's not as impossible to configure and use as GitLab). I'm not arguing for staying with GitHub though, just that I want something that's not GitLab.
I guess this isn't going to be a very satisfying discussion without at least some specifics. On my end, I'll say, Github does a *lot*: I could rattle off a laundry list just off the top of my head, not that I think that would help if you can't see the water you swim in. It's a figure-to-ground problem: You can't see it if you can't see it & there's only so much that can come from insisting there's a vase or two faces.
@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen I'm not disagreeing with you, GitHub also does a lot. The UX is better though. Again though, I'm not arguing for staying with GitHub, just that I'm leaving it for political reasons, not UX reasons and that I'm interested in something that's not GitLab for UX reasons.
I'm loathe to feed the misconception that Github invented interactive git web hosting (versus publish only things like cgit) and that everything else is a copy. It & Gitorious were nearly simultaneously introduced. But Gitlab now is in the position of trying for feature parity with a smaller user base and way fewer resources for gently salting away all the controls smoothly across the whole experience.
@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen That's exactly the problem with GitLab though, trying to feature parity (although I'd argue they've gone way beyond that too) w/o money is a losing proposition and they have a terrible UX because of it. The SourceHut route (make a new thing) or the Gitea route (copy exactly, but only the core important stuff) is far better for designing good software IMO.
Yeah, I'm not really trying to promote Gitlab to you so much as highlight the co-dependency of the model that plagues them both.
FOSS suffers a severe funding problem, one 'solution' that seems to work, at least for a while, is to offer something for the enterprise that competitors can't or won't.
You feel what you feel. That's valid. I'm not arguing against that. I'd be shocked if you ever settled for Gitlab at this point, if that were my goal here I'd be failing miserably.
That said, maybe you could acknowledge this is more about you coming from a certain set of expectations developed through your use of Github, then projected onto Gitlab, & less something essential to Gitlab alone.
tl;dr: Something doesn't have to be bad for you not to like it.
@BreetzTootz Yah, I was just thinking of running GItea and some CI system, but honestly I don't love Gitea either. Ideally I want Gerrit for code review but w/o the annoying magic branches and tracking through a second commit ID, optional git-am/git-send-email support, and a PR like flow that doesn't require that every single person have a separate clone of the repo that will be used once then thrown away. But probably start with Gitea or something existing.
@sam maybe you can work with codeberg to add the missing CI? looks like they have some chat about it here https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/428#issuecomment-210794
(and says they already support self-hosted CI)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!