microsoft buys github

[kkremitzki]

What GitLab does not have is a commit counter like Github...

It does but it doesn't seem to count commits made outside of the platform, while gitlab.com/freecad/freecad doesn't have any (since it was imported), but for example https://gitlab.com/kkremitzki/dotfiles does.

[yorik]

I just discovered that one can add more than one push URL to git ( get remote set-url --add --push some/git/url do that several times with all the repos you wish to push to), so it's easy to keep more than one repo updated. I can do that for the gitlab repo if you guys find that interesting... But there might be a better way with some automatic script somewhere that doesn't depend on a human pushing.

[oddtopus]

What about addons and addon-manager?
If anyone decide to migrate a wb repository to gitlab now or just duplicate it, using the double push option of git, I wonder how that could be managed.

My opinion is that the user (and the developer) shall always be able to choose by himself, so I'd rather support a toggle in the dialog of addon-manager to select which repo to download from, even if this takes a while. In case, to speed-up the choice, one of the repos can be tagged as "default".

[rus]

We are not using these features, fortunately

Then my concerns do not apply. Thank you for the comment.

[oddtopus]

I just discovered that one can add more than one push URL to git [..]
there might be a better way with some automatic script somewhere that doesn't depend on a human pushing.

I read here that it's possible to keep the repos of gitlab/hub syncronyzed, at least with an account of a certain level. Is that what you were looking for?

[kkremitzki]

I just discovered that one can add more than one push URL to git [..]
there might be a better way with some automatic script somewhere that doesn't depend on a human pushing.

I read here that it's possible to keep the repos of gitlab/hub syncronyzed, at least with an account of a certain level. Is that what you were looking for?

Indeed, and I also recall seeing something Gitlab announced shortly after the initial news came out stating that open source projects would be eligible for that premium stuff.

[jmaustpc]

What if we hosted our own infrastructure, I mean have our own git server?

Perhaps just for master and add-onsaddons, or perhaps also allow approved developers to have their own repos or something like that.

Just a thought.

[triplus]

When it comes to self hosting what needs to be considered is securing funds to fund it and having an administrator maintaining the solution. That is more or less a must.

One (of the endless) aspects to consider. Now that Microsoft is the new owner of GitHub things like this are more likely to happen:

https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/ ... worldwide/

Not because Microsoft is the owner and they have such plans up front. But they being a big international company and one of their products/services being a leading hosting provider for code repositories. I guess some "filters" are bound to happen.

[freedman]

One more devious plan Microsoft could have;
They said buying Github was in-line with their current strategy, what if that strategy is to get into the computers of operating systems they don't control. It's perfect for them, thousands of people per day come and load executables and run them on their machines. Now they have the option to embed snooping code to get access to Linux, ios, Android machines. They have been wanting this for a long time....... Microsoft is finally in a position to worm their way into Linux thru the back door.

[triplus]

Likely not for now. SourceForge tried something like that and that didn't pan out at all. Rationale is in my opinion way more obvious. Microsoft wants to stay relevant and wants at least some level of control. As their solution CodePlex didn't pan out and as they have more than enough money. They just bought the market leader in this area. And suddenly tens of millions of developers is using their service.