Comment by Fice
8 years ago
I'm glad to see Fossil mentioned here. Yet the real problem is not in the technical aspects and possibilities of project hosting migration, it's the dependence of the majority of open-source developers on GitHub's centralized social network.
Hopefully if this turns GitHub evil, other social networks can be leveraged to assist in a population migration. Like, someone posting a link on Twitter to wherever the repo will exist in the future.
This makes me wonder how hard it is to securely host a git server on my own. I'll start googling but I bet the answer is gonna be "hard."
The only hard part is securing your server, since setting up a remote git server only requires two things:
1. Running git.
2. Providing SSH access.
But even securing the server is not necessarily difficult, depending on the level of risk acceptable for your purposes.
Put another way, reasonable security is not too hard and AWS makes reasonable security fairly easy. Even self-hosted *nix servers can be pretty secure. However to seriously harden a service against skilled and determined attackers requires an experienced team and even that may not be enough.
What social network? The stars and follows? Does anyone actually care about them? Why? I've never seen the point.
They’re a decent measure of the reputation and stability of a project. I also use the stars to bookmark my projects for later.
The developer identities that link developer activity across all projects, the network of forks.
forks, pull requests and review comments
Not much of a network effect, there. You go where the code base you want to participate in is.
1 reply →