Comment by Y7ZCQtNo39
8 years ago
I could see developers ditching GitHub with the acquisition for a perceived conflict of interest. It's really easy to change your remote.
I see a potentially big market opportunity for anyone who wants to compete in the space now.
Changing the remote doesn't migrate anything in the issue tracker, merge requests, webhooks, pages or wiki
Migrating from GitHub to GitLab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI
this adresses some of the issues.
It doesn't solve the number one issue: External references to your project will all still point to github.com since that's where the project homepage (aka README.md) is.
7 replies →
I seem to remember that under the GDPR, vendors have to make data exportable. I wonder if people could use that for GitHub issues and the Wiki.
GitHub pages is super easy to move except for getting users to know the new domain.
The GDPR only applies to personal data, which won't be most of the content on GitHub.
Anyway, there are APIs which one can use to export issues.
1 reply →
It wouldn't be seamless. But it wouldn't be difficult for a competitor to create a "competitor import" feature that moved over most of it in a few clicks.
It's possible, but I think it's a stretch to say it "wouldn't be difficult."
This is also why I put my documentation in markdown files in the repo instead of using the Github wiki. I knew it would save me hassle later.
Wikis on Github are cloneable as normal repos: just use project.wiki.git instead of project.git in the clone URL.
Still one step too much making it harder to migrate. Should've been a directory in a repo, default to `wiki` or whatever and configurable to something else.
1 reply →
This means everybody linking to your docs will link to GitHub, thus you have a hard time moving ;)
As opposed to linking to GP's GitHub Wiki?
Agreed on both points. The shift will bring a lot of opportunity to build a more decentralized repo base. I think something like (Keybase)[http://keybase.io] might be interesting.