Nothing against GH per-se... we're paying customers and fairly happy with their service. But I still don't want to see their competition going away.
However, let's not fool ourselves: services like Codeplex, Google Code, or Sourceforge, that are not updated or providing new value, are going to be left behind and abandoned. In other words, their continued service wasn't providing any value, to their users or "competitors", because they weren't evolving.
I would rather people put their open source project on a code hosting service that is someone's priority, not just one that exists and is useless.
A `PushEvent` is fired for every open source repository that has `master` updated:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM (
WHERE type = 'PushEvent'
It's over 19 million!
Make code reviews your number one priority. Be the place that people want to put their code in, because they can review code, significantly easier on your site, as opposed to GitHub's. Make management your number one priority. Be the place that can provide managers with code metrics and analytics, that GitHub can't. And so on.
To take mind share away from GitHub, you'll have to treat Git hosting, as a secondary thing. You can't be a derivative of GitHub and expect to compete, and succeed. Like Snapchat, Instagram (before acquisition) and others, you can only compete with Facebook, from a completely different angle.
If you can provide a novel solution, that cannot be easily duplicated by GitHub and others, getting users to store code with you, will be significantly easier. With GitLab, Gitea, Gogs, etc., Git hosting has turned into a commodity product, which means you'll need to focus on providing value based on the code stored and not the management of the code.
That seems to be Microsoft's approach with Visual Studio Team Services. Whereas Github seems to be focused on code, VSTS is more focused on integrating every step of software development, with version control, work item tracking, continuous integration, etc, all living in one integrated package. Now, this means that the version control aspect of it isn't as good as that of Github's. But, the issue tracking is far superior, and you don't really need to invest in learning separate software (like Travis or Jenkins, or what-have-you) in order to get continuous integration working.
This isn't really a high bar. Doing more than one iteration of code review with GitHub's tooling is a complete mess. In addition to that, both PR comments and Commit comments exist which can be extremely confusing if you do make one when you meant to make the other.
There is already other tooling which leverage GitHub's APIs to provide a nicer interface for code review.
GitHub provides a list: https://github.com/integrations/feature/code-review
I don't think that that is an exhaustive list; for instance GerritHub is missing (although I'm not a fan of it).
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT repo.id) FROM [githubarchive:month.201701] WHERE type = 'PushEvent'
I got 1896676, so almost 2M distinct repos with commits in last January.
There's no ambiguity there. It's just how the language works.
"I saw that film last January."
"I saw that film in January."
As the other commenters have mentioned, "last January" may mean January 2016 for them, whereas for others it's 2017. The second example should be a definite 2017, except you always have your occasional smart alec .
I would disagree with jasonkester--there is ambiguity here.
_If_ "I saw that film in January", definitely means 2017, it requires quite deep semantics, as chancing it to "My birthday is in January" shows.
Tim: "It's a little known fact that Woodrow Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles while ice skating on the royal pond."
Bob: "That's clearly nonsense. The Treaty of Versailles was signed in June."
It would be very different to say, "the Treaty of Versailles was signed last June." That would imply it was signed in June 2016, rather than June 1919.
What about 'this past', is that used to refer to the latest instance or is that also last complete cycle?
I would interpret "this past" as most recent thing from the current. So "this past January" would, to me, sound like the most recent January (Jan 2017)
Neither offered much that couldn't be provided with barebones cheap hosting and a Gitlab install, and my impression as an outsider was thatneither really improved over time.
TBH, GitHub and BitBucket may not offer too much over GitLab any more either, but they are at least improving their products all the time and there's a sort of trendy network effect in using them that didn't exist for CodePlex or Google Code.
However, Google Cloud Platform does have private repositories that can also be used in their CI/CD solution.
Shame if you happen to live in the path of the juggernaut however...
I wonder how they might better monetize without becoming obnoxious?
Also, it supported many code source systems, not just git. GitHub only added SVN support recently.
They do seem to actually care about the two properties.
Supposedly there's a big redesign of SF in the pipeline, and more importantly, the first thing they did when they took over was cancel that malware hijack monetization bullshit which the previous owners had embarked upon. They scan for malware now too apparently, added 2FA and are offering HTTPS downloads. Regaining trust is an uphill battle, but they're giving it a damn good go.
Searching HN to see if he'd done similar to his AMA-type thing on /r/sysadmin, it's sad to see their blogposts have been posted and got no love. I didn't even know SF had a blog, and it seems to have some cool content.
(He didn't do an AMA-style post here, probably wise, but the Reddit post was submitted here and he showed up in the comments ).
Unfortunately, there seems to be the same thing happening with GitHub - at least from a layperson's perspective. (same thing meaning that github has extraordinary mindshare in the open source community)
Personally, I'm usually surprised when I encounter an opensource project that is not hosted on github. There are plenty of other options, but github has entirely too much mindshare to be safe. The people currently managing it have proven trustworthy, and git's architecture makes it easier to migrate should that change in the future. But even if it's easy there is a cost in lost supporting data.
Developers need to support other tools so that the big dogs have a reason to play nice through takeovers or changing business climates.
I hope that Gitlab continues to grow. And I'd love to see at least one other VCS grow their footprint. Competition is good. Git and github are not without problems, even if they are the preferred option at the moment. The more competition there is, the more pressure they have to improve.
<ironic I have a strong opinion considering I spent exactly $0 on version control in the last 6 months>
Reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4n3e1s/the_state_...
It will be interesting to see what their big redesign is.
>Regulators said the company was the brainchild of Roger B. Abbott, 39, who served three years in state prison after a 1982 conviction for cocaine trafficking in Orange County. Court records show he drove a red Porsche at the time with license plates that read "CRACK."
Not sure I would hold that against him, a drug trafficking conviction from the eighties.
In 2002,the date on the first article, Logan would have been what, 13 or 14 years old? As for Wirefly, weren't they teetering on the edge of being bought by Wallmart or something?
I'll reserve judgment, but be cautiously optimistic.
I only ever looked briefly at CodePlex (I'm not involved in any MS developer communities, so it wasn't really my scene), but it didn't seem competitive with Github in terms of how much you can do with very low friction. Likewise, I don't miss Google Code. It just wasn't good enough for me to want to use it...even Googlers didn't want to use it, and used Github more often.
And, there's some high quality open source options, as well, for self-hosted. I've tinkered with Gogs, and it's really very solid (if light on features compared to Github or Gitlab). And, of course, Gitlab has a very competent OSS offering.
Things seem pretty good right now. Not a lot of risk of ending up locked into one vendor that goes rogue. I mean, I worry about some projects really going all-in on github, like their dependencies and such are based on github URLS (that seems crazy on numerous fronts!). But, there are escape routes to many good competitors in the space.
This.Competition is good. The less competition, the less insentive Github will have to improve their product.
But Microsoft didn't put a lot of effort into making CodePlex user friendly either (just like google code back then). What makes Github great is that it is fairly easy to get started with, fairly easy to use and to navigate.
If you're going to rely on these external third-parties, please do consider self-hosting your own mirrors of your repositories.
Thankfully, git makes this kind of thing astoundingly easy compared to the bad-ole-days of RCS and CVS. There's no excuse not to maintain your own local backups.
+1. Exactly what I wanted to say. Back in sourceforge days setting up your own internet server to run the central repo was a big hurdle. Solving that and mailing list and the bug tracker was a nice relief. These days you can set up your own server in very short time for minuscule amount of money.
Not having to pay for any on-site sysadmin definetly saved the company money - even more-so when you consider there was no physical servers to break either.
That is scary if you believe that.. That nothing can be stolen because it is in "the cloud"... I am sure there are a few Celebs that will tell you in graphic detail how wrong you are.
>Not having to pay for any on-site sysadmin definetly saved the company money
Likely compromising Security, backups, and a few other things as you depend on "the cloud" to provide these things
I am sure the customers at CodeSpaces ( http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-sp... ) thought their data was secure in the "cloud" as well
I bet you claim that will nto happen to you because you only use "the largest providers" like AWS or Dropbox....
Far to often I see companies moving their entire operations to "the cloud" with no planning for Off-Boarding, Data Backups, or anything, they just assume "its the cloud so everything is perfect, cheap, secure and we need no neckbeard admins"
That is a scary scary trend. SaaS can be a good tool, when used right. It can also be the end of the organization when done wrong...
Consider that the cloud they did rely upon was comprised of other people's computers.
Arguably a much better proposition than a dusty old Dell server locked in a closer.
EDIT: fixed swipe typo
For .NET projects, open source code is growing, but still pretty rare. A lot of times when looking for stuff I end up on CodePlex. So the biggest question for me is going to be: How many old abandoned projects actually do get migrated.
I'm not seeing if non-project owners will be able to download archives of projects. It would be nice if anyone could download a project's archive.
I'm also going to invoke the names "Archive Team" and "Jason Scott" here to see if either one magically appears here.
There have been a couple of repos on codeplex where I've visited not for the code but for the issues (bug fixes I've remembered seeing in the past) as I've got the same problem (stackoverflow pointed me to codeplex).
Will that archive have the same "fidelity" as the project-owner's archive?
Will either archive include the complete commit history for the source code, or is it just a snapshot of the code as of the site going read-only?
Yes, the archive functionality is available to everyone, and will export the source code, documentation, license, issues, and downloads.
For source code history, it depends on the source code type. For Git and Mercurial projects, we'll include the .git/.hg folder so you have the full history; for TFS, it'll be just the snapshot as of read-only.
Some software out there is actually "finished" and undisturbed by surrounding ecosystems for the most part. When the author or maintainers are no longer around and a host collapses around a project, sometimes you just can't find the source anymore.
It's out there, for sure, but most likely in cold storage, collecting dust in some old hobbyist's closet.
We've updated the blog post with some additional details on the long-term archive plans: After December 15th, 2017, "CodePlex.com will start serving a read-only lightweight archive that will allow you to browse through all published projects – their source code, downloads, documentation, license, and issues – as they looked when CodePlex went read-only. You’ll also be able to download an archive file with your project contents, all in common, transferrable formats like Markdown and JSON. Where possible, we’ll put in place redirects so that existing URLs work, or at least redirect you to the project’s new homepage on the archive. And, the archive will respect your “I’ve moved” setting, if you used it, to direct users to the current home of your project.
There isn’t currently any plan to have an end date for the archive."
But seriously, that's a true story!
1 - CodePlex was a more elegant repo for a more civilized age and hasn't really kept pace with the features people want.
2 - Microsoft doesn't really benefit from keeping it open anymore and MS is realizing they can reap many of the benefits of collaboration without all the overhead by just using Github.
Github has the marketshare, but there are other options. Gitlab for example seems to be moving in the right direction and I'm excited to see what they do in the next two years or so.
(Disclaimer: I'm on the PM team for VSTS & CodePlex)
Still, their brag about being the most popular org made me wonder how the chips would shake out if you could truly count all the software published by one company. Google, for instance, tends to have separate orgs for its major open source projects: Polymer, Angular, Material, AMP, TensorFlow, Kubernetes, Firebase, and Chrome are all examples of major Google open source projects that each have (at least) one of their own orgs.
GitHub's org/repo URL scheme doesn't scale well to companies with many unrelated initiatives, so measuring "most contributors by GitHub org" isn't a useful metric.
"In fact, our GitHub organization now has more than 16,000 open source contributors – more than any other organization..."
The truth is that we actually do pay, as we have private repositories. We ask that people prepare their initial open source releases during a 30-day window - making sure they have a decent README file, the right LICENSE, Code of Conduct, etc.
Full disclosure, I work at Microsoft within our Open Source Programs Office and I own our billing relationship with GitHub for the large organizations including Microsoft, Azure, etc. We pay via a yearly invoice for a set level of services today but we're always looking for better ways to collaborate with GitHub!
For our externally-facing open source projects, we are using the GitHub.com public product like any other GitHub user - we realize that GitHub is where open source lives these days!
That said, we have some unique challenges, as we have nearly 10,000 members in some of our organizations.
Full disclosure, I work within the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office and am responsible for our GitHub.com billing arrangements at this time.
I'm not really one to kiss up Microsoft most of the time, but the fact GitHub is becoming the new SourceForge is not too keen.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the history, and wasn't there at the time, though I do know people who were.
Point being that SourceForge was not intended to be exclusively FOSS.
Their behavior was bad, but honestly I think a little too much was made of it. People got all wound up over the ethics issues (leeching off of other people's open source work to sell creepy adware), but the actual work itself remained accessible and supported.
Honestly even in its fading days, if you wanted a free host for a CVS archive and mailing list, SourceForge remained a good choice. It was providing more value than it derived even then.
If that's what happens to github, I think we can deal. Someone would just start a giant project to pull and mirror all the junk locked inside github (git makes that process distributed, you don't have to actually crawl their site and can use external archives) and we'd just start the cycle all over again.
I mean [GitHub] organisations with the most open source contributors seems like a pretty meaningless metric anyways for judging anything.
How you structure your team(s) on GitHub has nothing to do with your "commitment to opensource" or whatever your marketing phrase is.
e.g.: They have separate github organisations for:
(and many more smaller orgs as well, as I'm sure google do too)