7 ms·

Again, I can only comment from the perspective of a user; I haven't worked on the VCS infrastructure. The obvious generic challenges are availability and secur

Again, I can only comment from the perspective of a user; I haven't worked on the VCS infrastructure. The obvious generic challenges are availability and security: Firefox has contributors around the globe and if the VCS server goes down then it's hard to get work done (yes, you can work locally, but you can't land patches or ship fixes to users). Firefox is also a pretty high value target, and an attacker with access to the VCS server would be a problem. To be clear I'm not claiming that there were specific problems related to these things; just that they represent challenges that Mozilla has to deal with when self hosting. The other obvious problem at scale is performance. With a large repo both read and write performance are concerns. Cloning the repo is the first step that new contributors need to take, and if that's slow then it can be a dealbreaker for many people, especially on less reliable internet. Out hg backend was using replication to help with this [1], but you can see from the link how much complexity that adds. Firefox has enough contributors that write contention also becomes a problem; for example pushing to the "try" repo (to run local patches through CI) often ended up taking tens of minutes waiting for a lock. This was (recently) mostly hidden from end users by pushing patches through a custom "lando" system that asynchronously queues the actual VCS push rather than blocking the user locally, but that's more of a mitigation than a real solution (lando is still required with the GitHub backend because it becomes the places where custom VCS rules which previously lived directly in the hg server, but which don't map onto GitHub features, are enforced). [1] https://mozilla-version-control-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/hgmo/replication.html#hgmo-replication https://mozilla-version-control-tools.readthedocs.io/en/late...

monegator 1y ago
why github and not codeberg? badwidth? $$$ from microsoft? (traffic, free training for copilot, ..)
- Macha 1y ago
  I'm not sure codeberg has managed two 9s of uptime while I've been using it. Manageable when it's just a public mirror for occasional publishing of my small hobby projects, but I wouldn't recommend it for Firefox sized projects
  - Miaourt 1y ago
    Maybe if Mozilla gave one hundredth of their CEO's salary in donation to Codeberg they would be more than happy and able to scale to nine nine :p
    - prepend 1y ago
      Maybe. Maybe not. If I was the person responsible for the code, I wouldn’t want to gamble on them becoming good enough for me to use.
      - executesorder66 1y ago
        Yeah, it's not like they care about improving the state of the open source ecosystem anyway.
  - hedora 1y ago
    GitHub has been under 3 nines for the last year for me.
  - marcusramberg 1y ago
    I use GitHub for work, and it very frequently has outages. Not sure codeberg could be much worse tbh.
- Slartie 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure that Copilot already saw the Firefox source code, and that they didn't have to wait for Firefox moving to GitHub for that.
- GuB-42 1y ago
  I would say that using GitHub only for a public git repository is pretty good value. It is free and robust, and there is not much bad Microsoft can do to you. Because it is standard git, there is no lockdown. If they make a decision you don't like, migrating is just a git clone. As for the "training copilot" part, it is public, it doesn't change anything that Microsoft hosts the project on their own servers, they can just get the source like anyone else, they probably already do. Why not Codeberg? I don't know, maybe bandwidth, but if that's standard git, making a mirror on Codeberg should be trivial. That's why git is awesome. The central repository is just a convention. Technically, there is no difference between the original and the clone. You don't even need to be online to collaborate, as long as you have a way to exchange files.
  - immibis 1y ago
    I am banned from GitHub because I didn't want to give them my phone number. They ignored a legally binding GDPR request to delete all my data. I haven't got around to suing them yet. Recently I also got "rate limited" after opening about three web pages. Microsoft can do something to you, and that is to arbitrarily deny you access after you've built a dependence on it, and then make you jump through hoops to get access back.
    - LadyCailin 1y ago
      This is kind of a weird hill to die on, but you’re well within your rights, so you do you. However, it is clearly not correct to say that you were banned from GitHub. It’s like saying “I was banned from Google because I refuse to use computing devices.” Not really a ban, just self flagellation, which, again, whatever works for you.
      - immibis 1y ago
        Give me your social security number or you may not reply to my comments. If you don't give me your social security number, choosing instead to die on this weird hill, it's not correct to say you're banned - you're merely self-flagellating.
- jorvi 1y ago
  Why did you omit (self-hosted) gitlab..?
  - dspillett 1y ago
    [not OP, but making educated guesses from what has already been said] Given the post above, issues regarding self-hosting were at least part of the reason for the switch so a new self-hosted arrangement is unlikely to have been considered at all. I don't know what the state of play is right now, but non-self-hosted GitLab has had some notable performance issues (and, less often IIRC, availability issues) in the past. This would be a concern for a popular project with many contributors, especially one with a codebase as large as Firefox.
- freeopinion 1y ago
  I had a similar thought. I am disappointed that Mozilla didn't take some of the money they were spending on a self-hosted homegrown solution and throw it to something like Codeberg. I guess that a little funding from the likes of Mozilla could go a long way in helping Forgejo pioneer some super interesting federation. Of course Mozilla is free to make their own choices. But this choice will be read as the latest alarm bell for many already questioning the spirit of Mozilla management.
- dblohm7 1y ago
  Former Mozilla employee here. I've been gone for a few years now and have no insight into this decision, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Having said that, I think that, for better or worse, GitHub is probably the best location simply because it provides the lowest barrier to entry for new contributors. I know that's spicy enough to trigger dozens of keyboard warriors hitting the reply button, but every little thing that deviates from "the norm" (for better or for worse, GitHub is that) causes a drop-off in people willing to contribute. There are still people out there, for example, who refuse to create an account on bugzilla.mozilla.org (not that this move to GitHub changes that).
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > There are still people out there, for example, who refuse to create an account on bugzilla.mozilla.org (not that this move to GitHub changes that). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43971550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43971550
xenator 1y ago
If availability is on option then why Github? It doesn't support ipv6 and just cur people from part of the world. It denies access from Iran and other countries that US govs "doesn't like". I understand when small projects are hosted on Github, but Firefox should be much bigger to fit on Github.

monegator 1y ago

why github and not codeberg? badwidth? $$$ from microsoft? (traffic, free training for copilot, ..)

Macha 1y ago
I'm not sure codeberg has managed two 9s of uptime while I've been using it. Manageable when it's just a public mirror for occasional publishing of my small hobby projects, but I wouldn't recommend it for Firefox sized projects
- Miaourt 1y ago
  Maybe if Mozilla gave one hundredth of their CEO's salary in donation to Codeberg they would be more than happy and able to scale to nine nine :p
  - prepend 1y ago
    Maybe. Maybe not. If I was the person responsible for the code, I wouldn’t want to gamble on them becoming good enough for me to use.
    - executesorder66 1y ago
      Yeah, it's not like they care about improving the state of the open source ecosystem anyway.
- hedora 1y ago
  GitHub has been under 3 nines for the last year for me.
- marcusramberg 1y ago
  I use GitHub for work, and it very frequently has outages. Not sure codeberg could be much worse tbh.
Slartie 1y ago
I'm pretty sure that Copilot already saw the Firefox source code, and that they didn't have to wait for Firefox moving to GitHub for that.
GuB-42 1y ago
I would say that using GitHub only for a public git repository is pretty good value. It is free and robust, and there is not much bad Microsoft can do to you. Because it is standard git, there is no lockdown. If they make a decision you don't like, migrating is just a git clone. As for the "training copilot" part, it is public, it doesn't change anything that Microsoft hosts the project on their own servers, they can just get the source like anyone else, they probably already do. Why not Codeberg? I don't know, maybe bandwidth, but if that's standard git, making a mirror on Codeberg should be trivial. That's why git is awesome. The central repository is just a convention. Technically, there is no difference between the original and the clone. You don't even need to be online to collaborate, as long as you have a way to exchange files.
- immibis 1y ago
  I am banned from GitHub because I didn't want to give them my phone number. They ignored a legally binding GDPR request to delete all my data. I haven't got around to suing them yet. Recently I also got "rate limited" after opening about three web pages. Microsoft can do something to you, and that is to arbitrarily deny you access after you've built a dependence on it, and then make you jump through hoops to get access back.
  - LadyCailin 1y ago
    This is kind of a weird hill to die on, but you’re well within your rights, so you do you. However, it is clearly not correct to say that you were banned from GitHub. It’s like saying “I was banned from Google because I refuse to use computing devices.” Not really a ban, just self flagellation, which, again, whatever works for you.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Give me your social security number or you may not reply to my comments. If you don't give me your social security number, choosing instead to die on this weird hill, it's not correct to say you're banned - you're merely self-flagellating.
jorvi 1y ago
Why did you omit (self-hosted) gitlab..?
- dspillett 1y ago
  [not OP, but making educated guesses from what has already been said] Given the post above, issues regarding self-hosting were at least part of the reason for the switch so a new self-hosted arrangement is unlikely to have been considered at all. I don't know what the state of play is right now, but non-self-hosted GitLab has had some notable performance issues (and, less often IIRC, availability issues) in the past. This would be a concern for a popular project with many contributors, especially one with a codebase as large as Firefox.
freeopinion 1y ago
I had a similar thought. I am disappointed that Mozilla didn't take some of the money they were spending on a self-hosted homegrown solution and throw it to something like Codeberg. I guess that a little funding from the likes of Mozilla could go a long way in helping Forgejo pioneer some super interesting federation. Of course Mozilla is free to make their own choices. But this choice will be read as the latest alarm bell for many already questioning the spirit of Mozilla management.
dblohm7 1y ago
Former Mozilla employee here. I've been gone for a few years now and have no insight into this decision, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Having said that, I think that, for better or worse, GitHub is probably the best location simply because it provides the lowest barrier to entry for new contributors. I know that's spicy enough to trigger dozens of keyboard warriors hitting the reply button, but every little thing that deviates from "the norm" (for better or for worse, GitHub is that) causes a drop-off in people willing to contribute. There are still people out there, for example, who refuse to create an account on bugzilla.mozilla.org (not that this move to GitHub changes that).
- fsflover 1y ago
  > There are still people out there, for example, who refuse to create an account on bugzilla.mozilla.org (not that this move to GitHub changes that). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43971550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43971550

xenator 1y ago

If availability is on option then why Github? It doesn't support ipv6 and just cur people from part of the world. It denies access from Iran and other countries that US govs "doesn't like". I understand when small projects are hosted on Github, but Firefox should be much bigger to fit on Github.