5 ms·

There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputatio

There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputation (i.e. github stars) which are inherently sticky.

ryandrake 1mo ago
Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.
- seanc 1mo ago
  Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.
  - kortex 1mo ago
    Rhetorically, why can't folks add the feature of PRs to Git? Git is fundamentally just a graph manipulation engine and data structure. It would just be another object type, in a layer which sits above the normal commit graph. Obviously there is no "just make X" in software, but this feels reasonably achievable, and would have tremendous benefit for the cost.
    - pwdisswordfishq 1mo ago
      https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull
  - dannyw 1mo ago
    Where would you put comments then? Sure, there’s always mailing lists, but even so, someone still has to host Mailman. I do think GitHub has positively contributed to the software industry and open source. It’s been enshittified for sure, but it has had a golden era.
- jayd16 1mo ago
  LFS files sorta do need to be hosted. At least, it exists because full clones are untenable for many projects.
- thayne 1mo ago
  It doesn't have to be. But without a hosted "source of truth", it's kinda hard to actually distribute it, and have a way to accept pull/merge requests/patches.
- jolaflow 1mo ago
  In regards to issue tracking there are alternatives. Epiq is a git-native (vendor agnostic) issue tracker you self-host: https://ljtn.github.io/epiq/ https://ljtn.github.io/epiq/
zer00eyz 1mo ago
Github stars are a metric of what? If I build something that satisfies me and say 100 users (who all star me) does that really say anything. Are those 100 stars even "real" any more? All the old problems of the web are new again, and still remain unsolved.
- hugs 1mo ago
  github stars are a metric of investability. some investors use stars (and star growth velocity) to determine which projects they invest or don't invest in. (not saying it's good or bad - just saying it's a real thing.)
dewey 1mo ago
I don't think GitHub stars are what makes GitHub sticky. Having a single UI / account and being able to jump between work projects, private projects and random open source projects where I want to open a quick issue or submit a PR is much more sticky.
- mbreese 1mo ago
  The reason why GitHub is sticky was exactly this. It’s easy to fork, make a change, and submit a PR to another project. It’s the same interface for your code vs another person’s. It’s a simple, consistent interface to submit an issue. You can argue that the lack of diversity in infrastructure is bad, and I wouldn’t disagree. I think we should have more projects to explore better ways of working. But, the tradeoff is that when you have a centralized system, like GitHub, you also have less friction. The learning curve is small when everything uses the same tools.
hosh 1mo ago
I think as we see more AI participation in code, github stars are going to matter less.
NetOpWibby 1mo ago
My main reason for using Github is stars (bookmarking)

ryandrake 1mo ago

Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.

seanc 1mo ago
Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.
- kortex 1mo ago
  Rhetorically, why can't folks add the feature of PRs to Git? Git is fundamentally just a graph manipulation engine and data structure. It would just be another object type, in a layer which sits above the normal commit graph. Obviously there is no "just make X" in software, but this feels reasonably achievable, and would have tremendous benefit for the cost.
  - pwdisswordfishq 1mo ago
    https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull
- dannyw 1mo ago
  Where would you put comments then? Sure, there’s always mailing lists, but even so, someone still has to host Mailman. I do think GitHub has positively contributed to the software industry and open source. It’s been enshittified for sure, but it has had a golden era.
jayd16 1mo ago
LFS files sorta do need to be hosted. At least, it exists because full clones are untenable for many projects.
thayne 1mo ago
It doesn't have to be. But without a hosted "source of truth", it's kinda hard to actually distribute it, and have a way to accept pull/merge requests/patches.
jolaflow 1mo ago
In regards to issue tracking there are alternatives. Epiq is a git-native (vendor agnostic) issue tracker you self-host: https://ljtn.github.io/epiq/ https://ljtn.github.io/epiq/

zer00eyz 1mo ago

Github stars are a metric of what? If I build something that satisfies me and say 100 users (who all star me) does that really say anything. Are those 100 stars even "real" any more? All the old problems of the web are new again, and still remain unsolved.

hugs 1mo ago
github stars are a metric of investability. some investors use stars (and star growth velocity) to determine which projects they invest or don't invest in. (not saying it's good or bad - just saying it's a real thing.)

dewey 1mo ago

I don't think GitHub stars are what makes GitHub sticky. Having a single UI / account and being able to jump between work projects, private projects and random open source projects where I want to open a quick issue or submit a PR is much more sticky.

mbreese 1mo ago
The reason why GitHub is sticky was exactly this. It’s easy to fork, make a change, and submit a PR to another project. It’s the same interface for your code vs another person’s. It’s a simple, consistent interface to submit an issue. You can argue that the lack of diversity in infrastructure is bad, and I wouldn’t disagree. I think we should have more projects to explore better ways of working. But, the tradeoff is that when you have a centralized system, like GitHub, you also have less friction. The learning curve is small when everything uses the same tools.

hosh 1mo ago

I think as we see more AI participation in code, github stars are going to matter less.

NetOpWibby 1mo ago

My main reason for using Github is stars (bookmarking)