Just curious, is there a backup plan for D if github.com goes by the wayside?

Now that there seems to be community back-lash against it (at least on reddit) maybe a contingency plan would be useful.

Obviously not today or tomorrow, but you never know what's down the road.

On 07/02/16 11:22 PM, Wobbles wrote:
> Just curious, is there a backup plan for D if github.com goes by the
> wayside?
>
> Now that there seems to be community back-lash against it (at least on
> reddit) maybe a contingency plan would be useful.
>
> Obviously not today or tomorrow, but you never know what's down the road.

The only thing that we have hosted on Github is code.
So excluding integrations, we could move over to Bitbucket without too many problems.

I really wouldn't worry about it. Sure it would upset and add a lot of extra work but we sure won't be the only ones in that position.

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 10:22:35 UTC, Wobbles wrote:
> Just curious, is there a backup plan for D if github.com goes by the wayside?
>
> Now that there seems to be community back-lash against it (at least on reddit) maybe a contingency plan would be useful.
>
> Obviously not today or tomorrow, but you never know what's down the road.

If Github goes down we would still continue to use git like nothing has ever happened. We would just need to switch to a different pull request code review system, like GitLab for example. Or we can use forum.dlang.org like LKML.

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 10:27:02 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 07/02/16 11:22 PM, Wobbles wrote:
>> Just curious, is there a backup plan for D if github.com goes by the
>> wayside?
>>
>> Now that there seems to be community back-lash against it (at least on
>> reddit) maybe a contingency plan would be useful.
>>
>> Obviously not today or tomorrow, but you never know what's down the road.
>
> The only thing that we have hosted on Github is code.
> So excluding integrations, we could move over to Bitbucket without too many problems.
>
> I really wouldn't worry about it. Sure it would upset and add a lot of extra work but we sure won't be the only ones in that position.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of valuable info in the PR comments, that would be lost if github.com went down.  Since D never switched from bugzilla to github for bugs, that wouldn't be an issue.  Hopefully, we could pull that github PR discussion from a backup at archive.org or someplace.

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 10:48:49 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 10:27:02 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> On 07/02/16 11:22 PM, Wobbles wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> The only thing that we have hosted on Github is code.
>> So excluding integrations, we could move over to Bitbucket without too many problems.
>>
>> I really wouldn't worry about it. Sure it would upset and add a lot of extra work but we sure won't be the only ones in that position.
>
> Unfortunately, there's a lot of valuable info in the PR comments, that would be lost if github.com went down.  Since D never switched from bugzilla to github for bugs, that wouldn't be an issue.  Hopefully, we could pull that github PR discussion from a backup at archive.org or someplace.

IIRC Gitlab(FOSS, can self-host) is capable of keeping a perfect in-sync mirror of all Github data, I'd have to go review if it's still capable of this so don't take my word on it.

Bye.

On 02/07/2016 05:48 AM, Joakim wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there's a lot of valuable info in the PR comments, that
> would be lost if github.com went down.  Since D never switched from
> bugzilla to github for bugs, that wouldn't be an issue.  Hopefully, we
> could pull that github PR discussion from a backup at archive.org or
> someplace.

It'd be nice if we'd migrate to gitlabs. Not only is it really nice (I like it slightly better than github) but it doesn't have github's problems with being such a walled-garden.

There's also a github/gitlabs-like tool on sandstorm.io that sounds good, although I haven't tried it.