5 ms·

It is like people just can’t not to vendorlock even with git.

• satvikpendem 5y ago
  Eh, they provide a useful service. I wouldn't want to run my own git server.
  • SPascareli13 5y ago
    Honest question, why not? Its not like that's something that will scale infinitely, you only have so many devs and so many repos to work on, also it's not like it's hard to backup the data, actually, you can bet that you will have a updated copy of every repo on someone's machine if things really go south. Of all things we can outsource in our infra, git seems one of the least necessary.
    • stu2b50 5y ago
      Git vaults do a lot more than host remote git repos. Gitlab and github are valuable for everything else they do - the UI, PR management, issue tracking, CI, and so forth.
  • swiley 5y ago
    You don't have to though, that's what makes it so great. Just push with ssh to a directory under /var/www and you're good to go.
    • endofreach 5y ago
      Use FTP!
• atatatat 5y ago
  Conversely, services that give access to leave/clone via an open protocol like git are the last ones you should worry about lock-in with...right? Unless you get too comfortable with the services' tertiary benefits, and that's not lock in — that's just comfort.
  • boublepop 5y ago
    Having all of your issue tracking, docs wiki, build pipelines and more be reliant on a platform Ian or just comfort, it’s lock-in. If you ask a company “can’t we just switch from gitlab to github? Or the reverse, you’ll get a million reasons why it’s a huge task, because everything outside of the repo itself isn’t easily transferred.
    • pjmlp 5y ago
      That is what happens when huge chuck of devs expect to use software as free beer, while the people actually writing those tools need to figure out ways to pay their bills. A big reason why we are back into timesharing, the free beer is only the thin terminal stuff.