On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:09:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/8/2018 5:54 PM, Kapps wrote:
>> Personally I think the fear of Microsoft ruining GitHub is completely unfounded.
>
> My concern has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's about not totally relying on any third party not under our control.

Mmm..but the whole point of 'cloud' (from a business model perspective) is to make us all rely on 3rd parties not under our control.

MS wants github in order to create strategic dependencies - i.e. have 'them' host 'our' stuff. That creates the dependency. Now they have us.

Even if the D foundation set up its own git repo, it would still need to host it somewhere.

So no matter what you do, in the cloud, you're always dependent on someone. There just no getting around it.

So, in the cloud, it all comes back to risk management.

Ideally, repo's could be replicated across different hosting providers/platforms, and in the event of one going belly up, we'd all automatically switch over....

..but what are the chances that rival companies will co-operate, so that can be achieved?

On 06/08/2018 06:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> 
> Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through their api's.  No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it.

That does make things a little bit simpler, but web scraping really isn't all that much more complicated.

Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests. The main differences are just: Web scraping can occasionally get thwarted by changes in the webapp's presentation layer. Whereas web API can occasionally get thwarted by business rules changing what is/isn't accessible via API (this has been known to happen).

Ie, scraping needs to deal with UI changes, but unlike API, it cannot be selectively hindered/disabled (unless the primary website itself is hindered/disabled, too).

Thus, a robust tool will support both published web API and web scraping, and select the answers from whichever one works.

On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:06:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests.

https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html done?

On 06/09/2018 03:56 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:06:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
>> Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests.
> 
> https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html done?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAuPb16jRjY

On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 15:06 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 6/8/2018 3:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> > Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through
> > their
> > api's.  No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it.
> 
> That's good to know! The situation I was concerned with is it going dark all
> of
> a sudden.
[…]

Good job Microsoft bought GitHub then: GitHub was likely running out of cash, so needed a quick sale to avoid it going dark very suddenly.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 07:53:13 UTC, drug wrote:
> 04.06.2018 09:02, Anton Fediushin пишет:
>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:40:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo hosting to become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere due to their concerns about Microsoft.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>> 
>> Can't agree more: GitLab and Bitbucket deserve more attention.
>> 
>> Speaking of which, there's huge spike [1] in project imports on GitLab. These are some great news for it, I hope it doesn't crash.
>> 
>> [1] https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer?orgId=1
>
> Gitlab has a big (for me) advantage being self hosted standalone system I can use privately. Its free version has restrictions comparing to enterprise version but very usable.
> What about sexy modern design it's annoying (for me again) that this design changes frequently, it forces me almost every update to find where menus and buttons I used before placed now.

No more restrictions for using GitLab for open source projects [1], both SaaS and Self-Hosted.

It's really a big opportunity...

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-education-and-open-source/

/Paolo

On 06/09/2018 11:06 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> 
> [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-education-and-open-source/ 
> 

From the link:
"It has been a crazy 24 hours for GitLab. More than 2,000 people tweeted about #movingtogitlab. We imported over 100,000 repositories, and we've seen a 7x increase in orders. We went live on Bloomberg TV. And on top of that, Apple announced an Xcode integration with GitLab."

I find it honestly hilarious that MS buying GitHub has been a huge boost to GitLab. But then, I do love irony :)

(I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)

On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 23:41:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)

And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to Bitbucket.

Endless cycle :)

On 06/09/2018 08:29 PM, bauss wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 23:41:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
>> (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)
> 
> And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to Bitbucket.
> 
> Endless cycle :)

Ahhh! Time to make my own then! Wouldn't mind getting $7mil from MS :)

On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 20:00:45 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
> On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
>>
>> Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it.
>
> You have no idea about how big corporations' management spends money.
> As with Nokia and Skype - I don't know whether it was initially a plan to destroy products or management was just silly.
>
>> I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more:
>>
>> http://aka.ms/ms06042018
>>
>> and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place
>
> :) this is exactly how such deals are done - paying $7.5 bl. for nonprofitable company.
> Unfortunately, their books are unavailable because they are private company, but scarce information in the web suggests that in most of their years they have losses.
>
> Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase by $750 ml. This is more likely...
>
>> but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent.
>
> They can claim anything which suits best their interests right now. Or, as alternative, github can be broken in a such way, that their promises on surface are kept. Business is badly compatible with opensource by design.

I just finished reading this interesting article by a former Microsoft business guy, which makes the same point I did, that MS is unlikely to neglect github or otherwise force it in some direction to leverage it:

https://stratechery.com/2018/the-cost-of-developers/

You're right that MS has had many acquisitions go badly already, such as Nokia and Skype (though I'd argue both were long-term doomed before they were bought), but, as always, incompetence is the much more likely reason than malice.