this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
186 points (99.5% liked)
Firefox
17605 readers
208 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sad to see they only use MS GitHub instead of selfhosting something like GitLab. Just another vendor lock-in.
The cool thing about distributed version control is that it's distributed. It sounds like GitHub will just be a public remote, rather than the place where active development happens.
Since they will not use Github for Pull Requests, bug tracking, or any other bonus feature on top of git, I have to disagree. It would be super easy to change the host of their git repo.
Depends a bit on what the default cloning url will be. If the domain is in control of mozilla, which forwards it to github, then fine, if most people start using the github url, then it is still a vendor lock in, because many people and projects will use it, and that is not so easy to move away.
Update: To the people down-voting my comment, I would love to hear why you either disagree with me, or find that my that my contribution to this discussion is worthless.
The upstream URL of a project or repo is important, because it will be used in other projects, like in build scripts for fetching the sources. If a projects changes that URL in the future, and the old URL is no longer available/functional, all those scripts need to be changed and the old versions of these scripts do not work anymore out of the box.
If the project owns the URL, then can add redirect rules, that might help alleviate some of these issues. I don't think github allows projects that move away from it to do that. So this is a sort of vendor lock-in. The project needs to maintain the repo on github, because they want to break the internet as little as possible.
Honest question - is GitLab really that different of a vendor lock-in over GitHub?
Gitlab can be self-hosted. GitHub is a cloud-only service.
So they could do git.mozilla.com and it would be their own instance of git, on their own hardware (or, probably, from their own AWS account). They control it entirely.
They did host a git server at git.mozilla.org, but took it down years ago.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1277297
And you need a team managing it. I doubt that they have not considered it.
You can self-host GitHub. It takes around 32 GB of memory, however.
Wait really? Where?
If you can find the download for GitHub Enterprise, Ruby Concealer is little more than an XOR cipher. Make of that what you will.
It absolutely is. Yes. You can run and maintain it on an own server and it is open core (yeah 😥) using the MIT license - unlike GitHub where you have to rely 100% on the goodwill of Microsoft and everything is closed and locked behind a TOS.
So why not use forejo, which is completely open source?
If your criticism is MS pulling the plug, then Gitlab pulling a Redis/Hashicorp move and re-licensing their core should also be a concern
Absolutely! I’d always go the Forgejo route!
The thing is: I don’t see Firefox being hosted with Forgejo. The code base and amount of data might be way too massive. I see Forgejo as a forge for smaller projects.
Is there a reason you think Forgejo is only for smaller projects?
I've never seen larger projects like Firefox hosted with Forgejo.
Probably because it has only existed for 2 years
Gitlab's AGPL so I don't think there's anything stopping you from moving to a self managed instance.
No Gitlab is not AGPL, it is partly MIT and the corporate branch is under a proprietary license
Still better than a fully closed, 100% proprietary, cloud-only Microsoft service.
~~Where do they mention GH? They only mention git in the post.~~
nevermind
I read that thing 3 times, how did I miss that?