Hey you, yes you 🫵🏻! You created that awesome project on #GitHub or #GitLab. What if Trump cut off connections between the US and #Europe . What would you do without European developers? It’s time to think about a fallback solution!
This link is a #GitHub or #Gitlab to @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de mirroring tutorial
#FreeYourCodeFromUS
What’s Codeberg’s stance on this? Do they advocate for this, accept it, or dislike it?
Their FAQ talks about having disabled mirroring because of resource use of abandoned mirrored repos. Their blog post about the drop of mirroring says that manual mirroring is still possible.
I much prefer to use Codeberg as the primary and mirror the repos to github
I would love to do it this way but so far for any of my projects, github is the only platform that I received contributions (issues, code contributions, etc).
Unfortunately I feel this missing critical mass is a real sticking point for many small projects (think 10-100s of github ‘stars’). I hosted the projects simultaneously on other platforms and other projects exclusively on other platforms and never got engagement from the community except for a single heroic individual sending a patch per email.
I get that breaking this critical mass is part of the point and I am the dude complaining that my friends are all on whatsapp but it seems even more deeply entrenched here to me, starting with service-dependent issue collaboration. Only ways out I see currently are decentralised issue discussion à la sr.ht mailing lists, direct tracking in the repo like git-bug or federation/2-way mirroring of the centralised ones.
Until then, I don’t foresee this monopoly budging.
Very good solution. All developers should do the same. But in reality, this is not the case. We need to open developers’ eyes and explain to them how to proceed.
