On the other hand, that's only going to get worse over time - even more links, even more forks, even more commit messages.
And maybe Microsoft won't fuck up GitHub, but sensing this vendor lockin now, what would happen if they do?
So it's probably a band-aid that has to be ripped sooner rather than later. 🤔
Got approved for a GitLab Ultimate license so that's sorted (although I haven't received it yet)
@Gargron FWIW, you can move the repo and turn GitHub into a mirror.
GNOME did it before moving to GitLab, and it did improve contributions. (The recent move to GitLab majorly improved collaboration even more — but that's because they had relatively antiquated systems that still needed to be used beore.)
But, basically, you can move and keep the project on GitHub as a mirror. If you do so, I'd suggest having prominent notice in the README and links to the main repo in the README & project URL.
@Gargron GitLab has push mirroring for enterprise edition — does your Ultimate License also support it? https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html
(Otherwise, a mirror can be just another git remote that is pushed to, and that can even be automated.)
@Gargron Any idea on how to prevent that happening again, now just with GitLab issue numbers and links?
@Gargron I am really happy that people are moving away from GitHub now, even though I don't have a huge problem with GitHub as such.
It was just such a massive monoculture, locking the entire ecosystem into certain tools and patterns.
For instance, as long as GitHub refused to support mercurial, mercurial could not possibly grow and succeed.
this 'and maybe this time it will be different', ain't gonna be.
Thought even just having #microsoft behind is fuxked up, as it means of giving credibilaty to microsoft as being a great company, since even all the free software entheusiast use their plattform...etc.
...but #github was anyway fuxked up from the beginning since it's #proprietary software. From now on it will just be getting worse.
@Gargron Vendor lock-in hurts. If Tim Berners Lee had come up with a better URI implementation for HTML than the URL, resources would not be location-dependent now. Domain names have a federated directory service. I don't see why URIs shouldn't. It'd have to update a hell of a lot faster than DNS does, though...
so the earlier, the better.