Emigrate from Github

[Tuxilio]

Hi,
Currently, the code of Minetest (i.e. the engine, i.e. Minetest itself and the base game) is hosted on GitHub.
However, this is not so good for a number of reasons:

• GitHub is owned by Microsoft and is non-free software. So you don't know exactly what data GitHub collects.
• With the help of JavaScript Trap, Javascript code can be executed when a website is called up. This can often uniquely identify you, even if you don't have an account, and your own activities on the website can be monitored and stored.

However, there are also alternatives: Codeberg is a platform that has been established for years and could easily be switched to. Also NotABug.org could be an alternative.

TL;DR: Here are my main arguments against staying on GitHub:

• It is proprietary software. Not free software. Not open-source. Not even source-available
• It suffers from JavaScript Trap and the JavaScript code is often obfuscated
• Your browser will execute proprietary code by default by simply visiting GitHub.com
• Disabling JavaScript or using command-line are crappy workarounds, many things don't work until you execute their proprietary code
• Microsoft seems uninterested in fixing any of this
• So GitHub is is thus completely at odds with FOSS values
• We compel other users to use GitHub, too (network effect). Thus we sabotage ourselves
• Several good pro-FOSS webhosters exist now. Codeberg.org seems to be the best one. Self-hosting is also always an option.

Conclusion:

So, on the ethical side, putting your free software projects on GitHub is a clear no-go. There is absolutely no dancing around that putting our FOSS on GitHub is ethically a bad idea.

GitHub is a US American commercial platform. That means that they are subject to US laws, among which are COPPA and any sanctions against other states. Long story short, this means that you cannot contribute on, or even download code from, GitHub if…

• …you are younger than 13 years in the US, or younger than 16 years in the EU
• …you accidentally were born in Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea

Choosing Codeberg or any other Forgejo instance would be a good choice, also because they are actively working on federation: https://forgefed.org/ . GitLab is also working on federation, however, it will probably take them longer (because everything takes long at GitLab HQ… oh, and please do not migrate to GitLab.com, which is the commercial platform sharing the same issues as GitHub). So, in the future, people from all Forgejo and Gitea, and probably also GitLab and other Git hosting platforms, will be able to collaborate on issues and merge requests without having an account on the specific instance. For now, Codeberg accepts logins with GitHub accounts, so anyone who already uses GitHub can simply login to Codeberg as well.

So much this! Large corporations ruled over the Internet for long enough! It’s about time to take it back!

First of all, I won't trust Microsoft a second they will turn GitHub into a shithole. Maybe they won't, but their track record isn't exactly great.

Luckily, I never posted my code on GitHub! But I am worried about the other repositories, because there are far too many mods there and Minetest itself.

I never really liked GitHub anyway, the main reason being that GitHub itself (ironically) is proprietary, especially the heavy use of proprietary JavaScript. And the bugtracker isn't really great anyway.
You know what pisses me off the most? That many coders in the Minetest community pressured me again and again to post everything on GitHub! :O Shame on you.

I'm going to be moving from github and will probably remove integration for it from contentdb eventually

1. 2-Factor-Authentication
I tried so many times to switch it off. But it don't worked! I wanted turn it off but there stand it is already off. And it want still a Code. Then my e-mail got hacked. Now i can't log-in me for a while.
2. Github is owned by Microsoft
Github is owned by Microsoft and minecraft is also owned by Microsoft. And if minetest get to famous and minecraft would not anymore give so much money because all play minetest. I think microsoft would not be so happy. Yeah i minetest is allowed to make content like mineclone. But dependent on microsoft would be not good in this case
3. No good layout
Maybe you are other meaning but i think github looks very bad. Gitlab and Codeberg and notabug looks better then github and have a big Minetest-userbase.
4. More
I saw already posts which found github bad too. I am not first and i think i'll not be the last. The reason why i posted this post is that i got said i should use github to report suggestions. Why there is then a mirnor of minetest to gitlab.

I OF COURSE will move away from GitHub. Either self-hosted or using another provider. I just registered on GitLab and will check out what they have to offer.

Have a look at the past. Microsoft ruined EVERYTHING they acquired. There is not one single people of software that did not cycle through EEE. The most relevant thing might be Minecraft. Just have a look at what it became after they got their greedy hands on it. Or the former good Skype. Or all the other good stuff I’m too angry to search sources for right now.

When I realized what an utterly repulsive company Microsoft is I stopped using Windows. When they bought Skype I stopped using Skype, when they bought Minecraft I stopped playing Minecraft and stopped producing content for it, and – well – now I stop using GitHub.

I think even if the main repository moves to another site, a mirror should remain on GitHub, with issues and pull requests disabled/locked.

This has worked; Linux maintains a kernel.org site for most of its stuff, but does have a github mirror.

Microsoft buys Minecraft -> Microsoft buys Github -> Microsoft hates Minetest (because cannot buy it) -> Microsoft can ban "minetest" organisation.

I left some repositories on GitHub those I don't need either. I still have their clones on my computer so I can upload them on GitLab any time.

I think that Minetest could migrate to GitLab even now. It is easily possible to merge pull requests from GitHub to GitLab. The forks behave the same way as separate remotes. It just has to be done manually.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20223 - Emigrate from Github?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28682 - Why i not use GitHub
viewtopic.php?f=56&t=20225 - Microsoft to acquire GitHub for $7.5 billion
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/12324 - Eventually move to a free git platform
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7412 - Move repository So because of that I propose to move from Github to other services or self-hosted. I would prefer Codeberg, NotABug, or GitLab self-hosted. I wouldn't change to gitlab.com, because it's limited.

What do you think about it?

Thank you,
Tuxilio

[Festus1965]

lol,
Microsoft is not any interested in destroy or buy minetest. How many player we have ... lol
This open source game is the best open source for their new ideas - why to stop this free source ?

[Andrey01]

This would be completely absurd and senseless to move to other hosting services right now. If Minetest really represented to be a serious rival to MC Microsoft would do it already long ago. But Minetest repo has been staying untouched up to date and is working during many years.

[LMD]

I agree with Festus and Andrey. The idea that Microsoft would abuse their grip on GitHub to ban Minetest is absurd. The reputational damage this would incur is in no proportion to the marginal benefit a negligibly more Minecraft sales.

The "layout" / "UX" is debatable (matter of taste). Many of us are familiar with GitHub's UI by now.

There being a GitLab mirror (for CI purposes, I think) doesn't have any implications regarding the primary platform where development happens.

In summary, all your reasons are pretty weak.

Regarding your proposed alternatives: Codeberg and NotABug are lacking in comparison to GitHub and GitLab. I wouldn't want anything self-hosted either.

See https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/12324 for a GitHub issue properly discussing this.

[Astrobe]

I agree with Festus and Andrey. The idea that Microsoft would abuse their grip on GitHub to ban Minetest is absurd. The reputational damage this would incur is in no proportion to the marginal benefit a negligibly more Minecraft sales.

They could argue that it is too close to MC (as in "hmmm... let's issue a DMCA on this and see what happens"), even if it's just Mineclone, if they make another dumb move (like the previous one that gave MT some visibility thanks to a Youtuber) and stupidly think this would stop people from switching.

Don't underestimate big company executives, especially when they need to do something to calm down the stakeholders. Contrary to popular belief, markets are not driven by rationality (remember the TP shortage a few years ago?).

I'd go further and argue that MT should depend on no server at all, be it Gitlab, Github, Codeberg, ContentDB, or a Raspi under a bed serving files via FTP. At least the storage of mods should be distributed. There are a few yada-blockchain-yada solutions for this, but I think good old BitTorrent could do the job.
Of course, that's not at all what ContentDB and the MT side are designed for (not to mention that storage is just one part of the problem) but I wanted to bring up the idea.

[TumeniNodes]

Never going to happen.
Why?
Because even MS isn't that stupid.
If they were to do such a thing, every single opensource, or every project for that matter which is hosted on Github would realize the same could happen to them, and it would be a mass exodus = collapse
No one spends $7.5B on a platform or anything else, just to destroy it.

The Minetest project especially (the engine code), or even Mineclone will never be a plausible financial threat to MC.
A "worst case" scenario might be to threaten suit regarding Mineclone related to copied content (I'm not even sure that would hold in an actual legal stance), and if it would benefit MS, it would have already happened by now.
Does anyone seriously think no one in the MS sphere knows about this project?
But the engine itself is in no danger in any way.
Relocating the base repositories would be damaging to the project, as it would involve changes which would undoubtedly cause confusion, cause issues to arise among the user base, and sap away time of the few, stable and long term developers the project has, to focus on the move.
And the problems would trickle down to sub projects as well.
In short, just a huge PITA with too many potential downsides which no one wants to deal with.

Is it a good idea to have a plan in place should something bizarre occur with Github? Absolutely.
But to make such a move "just because MS" would be absolutely foolish.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it

If MS turns Github into the same mess it did with MC, forcing users to sign up for an MS account, that would definitely be good reason.
But honestly I don't see that happening, they know too many would jump ship just within the first 24 hours, which would cost MS more capital than the average world citizen could even imagine, it would be a catastrophic business move.

[Tuxilio]

Thank you all for reading and anwesring!

Many use Minetest because of the privacy - GitHub unfortunately destroys this feature:
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/ ... -statement
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/ ... b-collects
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/ ... chnologies

[Blockhead]

I'd go further and argue that MT should depend on no server at all, be it Gitlab, Github, Codeberg, ContentDB, or a Raspi under a bed serving files via FTP. At least the storage of mods should be distributed. There are a few yada-blockchain-yada solutions for this, but I think good old BitTorrent could do the job.

Git is a distributed version control system. Mirror the Minetest-related repositories you care about. You're free to seed BitTorrent archives of pre-built versions if you want, it's free software. I think BitTorrent would be great for world sharing honestly.

Never going to happen.
Why?
Because even MS isn't that stupid.
If they were to do such a thing, every single opensource, or every project for that matter which is hosted on Github would realize the same could happen to them, and it would be a mass exodus = collapse

Correct. Just think how much backlash there was to youtube-dl being removed. Minetest is less objectionable than that, since it doesn't even circumvent anything and actively avoids copywrong. Snuffing Minetest out on GitHub would be seen as an unconscionable power move.

[56independent_actual]

I feel like it would be best to spread the crops among many mirrors; there should never be a time Minetest source code leaves the internet; the project is too big for that to be permissable.

At the very least, Minetest should have a mirror that reflects the Github state exactly (that is that the mirror should allow replying to issues and submitting pull requests and all sorts of things to ensure developers never have to touch Github). At that point, should the wildfire hit Github, it will be easy to switch to the detailed mirror.

[Astrobe]

I'd go further and argue that MT should depend on no server at all, be it Gitlab, Github, Codeberg, ContentDB, or a Raspi under a bed serving files via FTP. At least the storage of mods should be distributed. There are a few yada-blockchain-yada solutions for this, but I think good old BitTorrent could do the job.

Git is a distributed version control system. Mirror the Minetest-related repositories you care about. You're free to seed BitTorrent archives of pre-built versions if you want, it's free software. I think BitTorrent would be great for world sharing honestly.

Yes, Git is distributed but it doesn't give you automagically a 24/7 server (it does actually with git-daemon, but you'll have to setup a machine than runs 24/7 and do the stuff to let people in with NAT+(Dyn)DNS, just like a DIY MT server). Ability to handle distributed data and hosting are different problems. An even if I mirror some MT repos, it would be difficult to use for others - unless somehow it can be mirrored in ContentDB too, or else you have to tell people to switch their ContentDB URL to something... A hassle, and it would look too suspicious too.

[Wuzzy]

TL;DR: Here are my main arguments against staying on GitHub:

• It is proprietary software. Not free software. Not open-source. Not even source-available
• It suffers from JavaScript Trap and the JavaScript code is often obfuscated
• Your browser will execute proprietary code by default by simply visiting GitHub.com
• Disabling JavaScript or using command-line are crappy workarounds, many things don't work until you execute their proprietary code
• Microsoft seems uninterested in fixing any of this
• So GitHub is is thus completely at odds with FOSS values
• We compel other users to use GitHub, too (network effect). Thus we sabotage ourselves
• Several good pro-FOSS webhosters exist now. Codeberg.org seems to be the best one. Self-hosting is also always an option.

----

My main argument against GitHub that it is proprietary software and suffers from the JavaScript Trap. In order to use GitHub, you're partially forced to run proprietary JavaScript code. GitHub is completely incompatible with free software AND open source ideals. GitHub isn't even source-available because much of the JavaScript code is obfuscated.

Once you go to GitHub.com, by default your browser will execute proprietary code.

You might say the JavaScript Trap doesn't matter but that’s a fallacy. You're biased because we’ve all have become so used to proprietary JavaScript because it's everywhere. But if we’re honest it's logically inconsistent to condemn proprietary software when it's a binary but on the other hand it's somehow completely fine and dandy when it's JavaScript in the browser?

The web was also addicted to Adobe Flash Player, too, but we have thankfully moved on and collectively dug its grave in the Web Graveyard. It would be great if the Web would start to collectively abandon non-free JavaScript as well.

GitHub is completely at odds with the goals of the free software movement AND the open source movement and it is problematic many projects continue to depend on it. Another problem with GitHub is that since so many FOSS projects are on it, other FOSS projects feel compelled to join GitHub, too. Also, note that choosing to stay in GitHub.com isn't just a matter of personal preference. You will directly affect other developers as well by de facto forcing them to sign up for a proprietary platform if they want to contribute.

But if more FOSS projects make the bold step to emigrate and choose a free/libre platform instead, the easier it will become for others.

The only reason why I still post sometimes on GitHub is compromise: Otherwise I would be locked out from posting bug reports and PRs. It's a compromise, but I will keep complaining until Minetest finally moves. :P Thankfully, I can use GitHub while avoiding the proprietary parts by disabling JavaScript, but this is a shitty workaround because many features break, and the command-line tools suck, too because they lack many important features. To use GitHub like it was intended, you MUST execute their proprietary code.

So I recently replaced my GitHub profile description with an anti-GitHub rant. :D And I also wrote a short essay on my website.

All my important projects are on Codeberg.org now, with a few legacy ones on repo.or.cz. I never used GitHub for any of my own projects except for a bugtracking-only repository for MineClone 2 many years ago.

Note that GitHub being owned by MS is NOT the main problem. It is A problem, but not the core problem. All of the problems I described existed from day 1, long before MS acquired it.

------

Conclusion:

So, on the ethical side, putting your free software projects on GitHub is a clear no-go. There is absolutely no dancing around that putting our FOSS on GitHub is ethically a bad idea. The REAL question is: What are the TECHNICAL requirements what Minetest requires from a code hoster?

[Desour]

I've recently tried Codeberg.org, and I liked it very much.
The interface is *very* similar to github. The only missing features I've found so far is the suggestion feature in code review comments, and comments on commits. But those are no deal breakers for me.
I've also tried Codeberg's Woodpecker CI instance (which is currently in testing phase). I found it really easy to use, tough I don't really have enough experience in other CI systems to compare.
One thing I like in particular about Codeberg is that the website feels much more lightweight than github or gitlab.

[Blockhead]

Though it's probably easy in 2023 to solve the problem from a technical requirements viewpoint with a service like Codeberg, that still does not solve the network effect problem as Wuzzy mentioned. If Minetest were to cease being listed on GitHub, it would likely become harder to find, since fewer people searching or getting repository recommendations would find it organically on GitHub. Furthermore, it would add a (small) amount of friction to contributing, since many people already have GitHub accounts, but far fewer have Codeberg accounts. Thankfully, it is easy enough to create a new account on Codeberg/other site.

I think even if the main repository moves to another site, a mirror should remain on GitHub, with issues and pull requests disabled/locked. That poses another problem: Issue and Pull Request migration. If Codeberg and GitHub both have adequate APIs then it shouldn't pose a significant problem beyond writing a bot to do the migration. Asking our core devs & helpers to manually move and review every single one of these is infeasible, so a bot script is the only feasible way, really.

Another problem: Does Codeberg/other candidate support kanban boards like GitHub Projects? Are we willing to move to an external kanban if it does not?

All of these problems are not impossible to overcome at all, in fact they are relatively easy in this day and age. But they must be solved properly before there is a real prospect of migration, because practical concerns unfortunately win out over principles.

[Desour]

I think even if the main repository moves to another site, a mirror should remain on GitHub, with issues and pull requests disabled/locked. That poses another problem: Issue and Pull Request migration. If Codeberg and GitHub both have adequate APIs then it shouldn't pose a significant problem beyond writing a bot to do the migration. Asking our core devs & helpers to manually move and review every single one of these is infeasible, so a bot script is the only feasible way, really.

Idk how well it works, but Codeberg can do issue and PR migration.

[Mantar]

Issue and PR migration went more or less seamlessly for Exile. Codeberg even has an option in there to stay in sync with the Github repo.

[Tuxilio]

Though it's probably easy in 2023 to solve the problem from a technical requirements viewpoint with a service like Codeberg, that still does not solve the network effect problem as Wuzzy mentioned.

It's a big different if we say "Use Codeberg - Free Hosting without Tracking by a Non profit-company on an OpenSource platform" or if we say "Use GitHub - Hosted with Tracking by an Profit-oriented-company on an proprietary platform".

If Minetest were to cease being listed on GitHub, it would likely become harder to find, since fewer people searching or getting repository recommendations would find it organically on GitHub. Furthermore, it would add a (small) amount of friction to contributing, since many people already have GitHub accounts, but far fewer have Codeberg accounts. Thankfully, it is easy enough to create a new account on Codeberg/other site.

Have you found Minetest via GitHub? I think we should upload the Code to GitHub, but with a notice in the README file to use Codeberg.

Another problem: Does Codeberg/other candidate support kanban boards like GitHub Projects? Are we willing to move to an external kanban if it does not?

Apparently Kanban boards exist, but are poorly named: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/issues/13 and https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/694

Thank you all,
Tuxilio

[56independent_actual]

it would add a (small) amount of friction to contributing

Bacteria on rails on branch lines add a small amount of friction to the trains running there. Do we stop ALL the trains running there just because of it? No, the only reason we do it is because of poor management by some "Doctor" beeching. Same for contributors; the friction is just as important as the miniscule bacteria. We might as well focus on taking the Doctor Beechings out of the equation to make contribution easier.

I think even if the main repository moves to another site, a mirror should remain on GitHub, with issues and pull requests disabled/locked.

This has worked; Linux maintains a kernel.org site for most of its stuff, but does have a github mirror.

[Tuxilio]

it would add a (small) amount of friction to contributing

Bacteria on rails on branch lines add a small amount of friction to the trains running there. Do we stop ALL the trains running there just because of it? No, the only reason we do it is because of poor management by some "Doctor" beeching. Same for contributors; the friction is just as important as the miniscule bacteria. We might as well focus on taking the Doctor Beechings out of the equation to make contribution easier.

Yes, you're right. We could say that all new issues and so on are on Codeberg, and old ones can switch, or stay on GitHub until they are closed.

[Wuzzy]

Issue and PR migration went more or less seamlessly for Exile. Codeberg even has an option in there to stay in sync with the Github repo.

Yeah! That's the stuff I like to read! :-) Amazing.

The more games and mods are on [Insert any non-proprietary hosting service here], the better.

So even if Minetest stays (for now!), that doesn't mean that games and mods have to stay either. This can help tremendously to normalize FOSS in the Minetest community (it's almost absurd I have to say this sentence).

I personally don't use GitHub mirrors for my projects (my projects were never on GitHub to begin with), but I can see the rationale to use a GitHub mirror for strategic reasons, as long GitHub is still relevant.

Also please remember this isn't about GitHub vs Codeberg. This is about proprietary software vs free software. If it turns out there is a FOSS hosting service even better than Codeberg, I'll happily embrace it. My main reason why I talk about Codeberg so much is mainly strategic: It makes it very easy to migrate, by even using the same UI style (so users don't have to re-learn). I am so grateful for the developers who made this software (Gitea / Forgejo) possible in the first place, this hard work really has to be appreciated.

[Tuxilio]

Another advantage of Forgejo, which is used by Codeberg, you can easily switch to another platform:

By choosing a Forgejo instance, you can easily migrate away from Codeberg in case you don't like it.

[PatriciaMartinez]

helpful information

[Xerenogan]

I agree with moving off of github. While I have a github account, I've lately been using codeberg.
Just throwing out my 2¢.
This is a good discussion and was interesting to read. Cheers all!

[Tuxilio]

Hi,

Screenshot_20230718_165123.png (18.39 KiB) Viewed 6141 times

I think most users wouldn't mind switching or would very much like to switch. So we have to find the best platform to host. I'd prefer Codeberg.

Thank you,
Tuxilio

[Nininik]

wink.gif (834 Bytes) Viewed 6125 times

Ngl I've seen what micro🅱️oft does to things like mindcrack they added the stupid swear moderation system and also don't allow gun mods anymore, the only thing keeping it alive is the dumb updates and also if it does die we might have a higher chance of thriving and mindcrack players joining us, but multicraft might overtake us >:(

spiteful.gif (724 Bytes) Viewed 6125 times

[Neuromancer]

I think github is going to be around forever. I think Codeberg could shut down at anytime. I'm not going through the hassle of losing all my checkin history by going to some fly by night source control system. If it aint broke don't fix it. In an ideal world I would go with a more Free/Open Source provider, but it aint worth the risk or the hassle for me. Plus I don't want 3 different accounts. I want to focus on delivering value to Minetest players, not jacking around with some source control system. Usually I'm a rebel, but this isn't something worth wasting brain cycles over.