Hacker News Reader

Comment by bastardoperator | Hacker News Reader

ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself. All I see is they have CI issues coupled with dumbest anti AI policy that is impossible for them to enforce. Giving up your donations and losing half your community doesn't seem like an intelligent move when all you had to do is update your CI.

View on HN

> ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself

Codeberg is also a Git-based project host. It doesn't even support other repo types. Why would you be expecting the latter?

If a project announcement or article headline says someone/something is quitting or leaving GitHub, it makes a lot of sense to assume that their issue is with GitHub (and in this case, it would be an assumption they'd be right about).

I was pointing out how ironic it was for them to move from git SaaS to git SaaS while having no issues with git on the git SaaS they're moving away from. Make sense?

That's not ironic.

If they had trouble with Git on GitHub, and then left GitHub for Codeberg, where they also have to use Git, then that would be very strange.

Instead, they had trouble with GitHub, so they left GitHub, which makes perfect sense.

You're conflating GitHub the platform with GitHub the bundle of services. CI is optional, swappable, not unique to GitHub. Sponsorship infrastructure and discoverability are not. The complaints target the optional layer. The migration sacrifices the sticky layer. That's backwards, and ironic, with the intention of being performative. It's almost like selling your car because a tire lost some air, lol.

This is an insane comment right from the thesis.

> Make sense?

Only if they use it purely as a git SaaS which they don't, it's also an issue tracker and discussion forum. Even PRs aren't strictly a git concept. Given they use all those things and given they're against having AI features built into them, it does not seem ironic to me at all.

  ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself.

…

  all you had to do is update your CI

Updating your CI only addresses one of the issues you raised, and you forgot about the front-end complaints which also wouldn't be addressed by "updating your CI".

It's all faux outrage, they didn't give a shit about ICE or MSFT until they could use it as a rage bait prop.

Imagine being a slave to any SCM UI when cli tools and desktop clients have existed for ages not to mention integration into nearly every IDE. Also, what they're describing "random" workflows is classic ci build machine went offline and came back later.

Regardless, best of luck to them, hopefully they don't run into any more "monkeys", that would be terrible for them.

That's kind of what they are doing - the move is 'updating their CI' to Codeberg Actions which is presumably more reliable. All the git workflows stay the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com