@phryk honestly, I wonder how viable it would be to introduce subtle bugs and vulnerabilities that would affect Copilot.
@rysiek I think it'd be viable, but you'd probably have to write another machine learning tool of similar complexity as copilot to make it effective.
I migrated interesting repos to my Gitea instance over the last couple of months.
You are saying that archiving is not enough?
@RyunoKi I don't know, but as the Copilot source isn't open the only way to know for sure is someone stumbling over their own archived code through Copilot.
As I always assume companies do the most shitty thing possible, I would recommend doing everything in your power to make sure your code is properly deleted from their machines.
@RyunoKi Yeah, but I think some breakage is needed so maintainers of packaging solutions that support getting repos from github, but not just general git repo URLs see some sense and add support for it.
Why only non-fork?
If I understand correctly that puts the work of other developers at risk - even if their deleted their main repos too!
Or does Copilot only take non-fork repos? (I'm no developer at all...)
@trianderror No, you're right. This is more of a laziness thing on my side as I'm pretty sure none of the projects I have forks of on my account moved away from MSGH.
@phryk As someone who is just getting into dev can you elaborate on this a bit and recommend an alternative?
Github has ongoing deals with known human rights violator ICE, is owned by one of the most well-established enemies of FOSS and uses code from other people as basis for their proprietary code completion breakinga shitload of FOSS licenses.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit