Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: chief1983 on June 05, 2018, 04:38:12 pm
-
Microsoft buys GitHub for $7.5 billion/ (https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-buys-github-for-7-5-billion)
Figured we should have a place to discuss how devs feel about this. There are apparently a lot of projects #movingtogitlab (https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/03/movingtogitlab/). Personally I feel like waiting to see what happens before doing anything, but we may want to discuss how difficult moving to another hosting platform _could_ be if we ever needed to.
-
Well.. was something else expected after i have to register for the SCP there? :D
For my working projects i was never registered on GitHub.
But for a non-commercial project like the SCP i would also recommend to wait, if there will be any changes. I would feel much worse if this would be project where parts of it where on a commercial basis.
-
I'll wait and see what changes MS brings to GitHub (if any). Worst case scenario would be that GitHub becomes unusable or simply vanishes, in which case I'd either switch to gitlab.com, my own GitLab server or some other public service (kernel.org has a nice list of alternatives (https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting)).
My biggest issue here is that Travis CI basically requires you to use GitHub. Unless that changes, I'll probably keep using GitHub for Knossos/Nebula as long as it's reasonable to do so (i.e. free and not a PITA). If I ever switch to some other service, I'll probably set up a script to mirror all the new commits over to GitHub.
Really, the only thing I'd loose besides the CIs would be the bug tracker but that's easily replacable.
[...] but we may want to discuss how difficult moving to another hosting platform _could_ be if we ever needed to.
Moving the git repo itself is pretty easy. Just update the remote url and push. Everyone else would also need to change the URL or make a new clone. The issues can be exported through GitHub's API IIRC which would take more effort but is still doable. Downloads are already hosted elsewhere, which only leaves Travis which... seem impossible to use without GitHub unless you leave the GitHub repo up as a mirror (but what's the point then?).
EDIT: Looks like AppVeyor works with every public git repo, so we could keep using that if we decide to leave GitHub.
-
Losing things like Travis was something I was concerned might happen, of course they may get pressured to make moves to support GitLab or some alternative as well. It may also be a good reason to move forward with a Jenkins-based setup where we have more control over our own build environments again.
-
.....Why would we leave Github?
Jesus, listen to you people talk it's as if we're still in the bad old days of Balmer....
-
MSFT is hosting a considerable amount of Open Source stuff already on GitHub such as DevDocs, PNP Core, PNP Cmdlets, SPFx and such. I would be very surprised if the consciously tried to flock it up.
-
I'll wait and see what changes MS brings to GitHub (if any).
As I said, I won't leave GitHub (yet). It's just nice to know that I have the option in case it becomes necessary. If you want a laugh, look at the Twitter announcement and all the replies from people saying they're leaving GitHub for GitLab (which is hosted on Azure BTW).
-
I don't think MS bought GitHub to make 0 changes to it. People flocking away already is one significant effect it is having. So I wasn't advocating for us to leave, but personally just wondering what we would need to do to be prepared to leave if something does end up warranting it.
-
Figure out what sort of change would make Github nonviable for us first, I suppose.
-
How about MS deciding to be picky about what kind of license software must be under to access free hosting?
-
a credible scenario, since FSO doesn't have a proper open-source licence but instead something sketched on the back of a napkin by volition!
explain how it is in any way more likely under microsoft ownership than before
-
No one asked for it to be any more likely, but the fact is, things are likely to change. I can't guess as to what kind of changes might be more or less likely, but I feel there might be a non-zero chance we could end up needing to look elsewhere as a result. Just figured discussing what kind of headaches that would cause wouldn't hurt, as those kinds of analyses are sometimes beneficial in their own right. For instance, setting up Jenkins as our primary CI would be beneficial in other ways, even if we didn't lose Travis and have to rely solely on it.
-
Jenkins has multiple problems for us:
- We need a custom machine for hosting since
- We need dedicated build workers for actually compiling the code
- We need someone to act as the administrator of all these machines
If GitHub suddenly becomes hostile towards our project then it's time to actively search for alternatives. Until then we can continue using GitHub as before and look at alternatives at the same time in case we need them at some point.
And if someone sets up a Jenkins server we can always use that with GitHub.
-
I did setup a Jenkins server a while ago since chief wanted to test FreeBSD building and I wanted to get faster macOS builds. However, we never did anything with it (for various reasons).
I've been thinking about setting up a new CI since I'm running into issues with Travis (the Knossos Ubuntu builds keep failing there inside Docker even though I can run it fine on my own machines).
If anyone's interested, I could setup Jenkins again. In that case I'd probably start using it for the Ubuntu builds (and maybe Arch Linux). Once the server's running, anyone (with a user account) can add new workers. I'll add a few linux workers and maybe one or two Windows workers (but I'm not too sure about that).