For anyone that needs to know: it’s criminally easy to set up git for multiple remotes, making a migration from GitHub a lot easier.
Remember that origin is just the default, and you can have any number configured you want.
View all remotes: git remote -v
Add new remote: git remote add $name $url
Push to another remote: git push $remotename $branchname
Pull from a specific remote: git pull $remotename/$branchname (note the slash)
Fetch from all remotes: git fetch --all
The first two are just one-time setup, and the rest just get bolted onto your existing workflow. At some point, you’ll want to use git remote move names around, possibly even making origin something other than GitHub. Cheers.
If only the forge parts were part of the spec like I believe in fossil for example. They are pretty much standardized already. All of the forges have issues, prs, releases. If there exists a git extension for this already, we really ought to spread that via word of mouth because at least I’m not aware of one. If not, I hope someone more familiar with the git spec could work one out and write helpful contribution guides to go with it. I, same as a lot of others I would believe, would be very much interested in helping build one.
Except the difficulty in migrating from GitHub is not moving the source code, that’s the trivial part.
It’s moving the discussions, issues, releases, free CI on GitHub Actions, free hosting on GitHub Pages, stars, visibility, existing community around the project on GitHub, losing contributors. These are the problems, not configuring git for another remote.
True, but the article is about projects getting de-platformed, so all that goes away under those circumstances. There’s value tied up in all that data, but the codebase itself might be far harder to replace securely if the public repo just vanishes. Better to have at least an alternate offsite backup - on another service even - if all you do is maintain a project-owner-controlled clone.
Plus, I know it’s a small gesture, but some folks might need that tiny push to migrate if they’re already fence-sitting about leaving.
“Perhaps most frustratingly, all of the tickets, pull requests, past release builds and changelogs are gone, because those things are not part of Git (the version control system),” Sauceke told me. “So even if someone had the foresight to make mirrors before the ban (as I did), those mirrors would only keep up with the code changes, not these ‘extra’ things that are pretty much vital to our work.”
Yea, git is software that lets you manage repositories whereas github, codeberg, forgejo etc are websites that allow you to host those repositories. You don’t necessarily need any of those either, you can self host your own repositories if you wish, the only difference is how you can share and collaborate on repositories.
I recommend giving the wikipedia page a quick looksie, especially the “Git Server” section.
Git isn’t a service like you may be expecting, but git servers can be. GitHub, GitTea, GitLab, SourceForge, and Codeberg are all examples of such services, all of which can be used with the git tool.
There’s a bit of merit to that. After a purchase, a lot of people are wary, and likely to magnify any changes that happen immediately. They need a period of stabilization to dissuade fears, and assure that “nothing will change in the long run”. Even this article is highlighting what happened around a month ago over a period of time, because it wasn’t apparent in the moment.
Sure, but my point is that the purchase isn’t why this happened. It’s huge stretch to say that, we’re way past the teething stages here and it’s been a Microsoft product for a long time now. No love lost for Microsoft by me, I’m full-time on Linux anyhow so it’s not like I’m defending them or something absurd.
GitHub themselves have gotten to be a big company and big companies make heavy-handed and controversial decisions on their own. Maybe GitHub is the baddie is all I’m trying to say here.
I haven’t really dived deep on this but my gut feeling is because they linked to the erotic games. I looked into this a bit in the past, but I may be getting it mixed up with Google’s policies on Docs now that I’m thinking of it, but maybe they have similar policies. The gist was that they weren’t as concerned with hosting legal artistic erotic content as they were linking to it. Like they didn’t want their platform to be used in a way to sort of advertise porn. I’m actually pretty sure I’m thinking of Google Docs though. I was looking for a way to publish erotic stories and considered GitHub Pages as well as Google Docs so it sort of blends together.
404media.co
Najstarsze