Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

Never understood that either. If someone was wrong and bad, and now they're trying to do right and good, we need to celebrate that. Not just because that's awesome in itself, but also to give the opportunity and incentives for others in the future to do better.

If everyone is always bad regardless if they're trying to change, what incentives would they have from changing at all? It doesn't make any sense.

Well, it's not like it's a simple black and white situation, universally applicable to every debate in human history. Sometimes it is relatively better to be open-minded and able to change own opinion. Sometimes it is relatively better to keep pushing a point if it is rational and/or morally correct.

The reason why the latter stance is often popularized and cheered is because it is often harder to do, especially in the adverse conditions, when not changing your opinion has a direct cost of money or time or sanity or in rare cases even freedom. Usually it involves small human group or individual against a faceless corporation, making it even harder. Of course we should respect people standing against corporation.

PS: this is not applicable if they are "clearly wrong" of course.

Its a thing with (online) culture - no matter what you do you're going to ruffle some feathers.

If no one hates what you are doing chances are you're not doing anything really

There was no mind change, just a change in published words from a true expression of his mind into a more bland corporate speak

For me it depends heavily on context.

Some would say if you always stick to your guns and double down, you might wind up President.

> I often find we don't appreciate enough people accepting their failures and changing their mind.

Because this plays into a weird flaw in cognition that people have. When people become leaders because they are assholes and they are wrong, then after the wind blows the other way they see the light and do a mea culpa, there is always a certain segment that says that they're even more worthy to be a leader because they have the ability to change. They yell at the people who were always right that they are dogmatic and ask "why should people change their minds if they will be treated like this?"

If one can't see what's wrong with this toy scenario that I've strawmanned here, that's a problem. The only reason we ever cared about this person is because they were loud and wrong about everything. Now, we are expected to be proud of them because they are right, and make sure that they don't lose any status or position for admitting that. This becomes a new reason for the people who were previously attacking the people who were right to continue to attack the people who were right, who are also now officially dogmatic puritans whose problem is that they weren't being right correctly.

This is a social phenomenon, not a personality flaw in these leaders. People can be wrong and then right. People can not care either way and latch onto a trend for attention or profit, and follow it where it goes. I don't think either of these things are in and of themselves morally problematic. The problem is that there are people who are simply following individual personalities and repeating what they say, change their minds when that personality changes their mind, and whose primary aim is to attack anyone who is criticizing that personality. They don't really care about the issue in question (and usually don't know much about it), they're simply protecting that personality like a family member.

This, again, doesn't matter when the subject is stupid, like some aesthetic or consumer thing He used to hate the new Batman movies but now he says that he misunderstood them; who cares. But when the subject is a real life or death thing, or involves serious damage to people's lives and careers, it's poisonous when a vocal minority becomes dedicated to this personality worship.

It's so common that there now seems to be a pipeline of born-agains in front of everything, giving their opinion. Sir, you were a satanist until three years ago.

Came here to write that. Let us recognize that he accepted our feedback and improved. This is good.

[dead]

I think it's because when people do a 180 due to public pressure, it's hard to know to what degree they changed their mind and to what degree they are just lying about what is on their mind.

> Admitting you were wrong requires not erasing the evidence of what you said.

I don't think there's really an obligation to announce to newcomers, "hey, an earlier version of this post was overly inflammatory." But you should be forthright about your mistake to people who confront you about it, which is what's happening in the forum thread you linked. I think this is all fine.

Perhaps you should frame it differently if you speak for a company and provide criticism on a public platform, but mean tweets are often far less insulting that some business decisions customers and developers are subjected to.

I think developers here are probably perfectly innocent about these changes. The product mangers have to push for this integration or get replaced. This has been a theme at Microsoft for quite a while.

I don't see the need for a note in this case because what was there wasn't wrong, there's plenty of evidence that supports it. It's just that the tone they used that was inadequate and very rude for no reason, so they edited it to be more polite, it doesn't seem a correction or retraction.

No evidence was erased as the evidence exists.

The reality is he wasn't wrong, he just didn't care to deal with the tone policing concern trolls of HN and elsewhere.

If I could upvote you, I would. I have never liked the mob of people that think we should all be super diplomatic corpospeakers who hedge everything and who think that not doing so is "offensive" or "unprofessional". I definitely didn't think anything was wrong with the original sentences or word usage, because it wasn't aimed at any specific individual with the deliberate intent of being offensive, but was aimed at Microsoft itself. And even if the intent was to be offensive, well, on the internet your always going to offend someone. You could be super nice and say all the right words and someone would still find a way to be offended by it. And were these circumstances ordinary, I would call out the word usage as well, because it would be uncalled for. But given all the evidence that the original points at, it's rather hard to say that GitHub didn't deserve it. And it is also rather difficult for me to see how this wasn't the time or place for such language. Sometimes the only way to get your point across is to be "unprofessional" (whatever that means these days).

  There's a reason humans invent colourful language and epithets. They always
  do, in all languages. Because it's useful!

  I have never liked the mob of people that think we should all be super
  diplomatic corpospeakers who hedge everything and who think that not doing
  so is "offensive" or "unprofessional".

In all seriousness, this comment really makes me want to try out Zig!

  not work with every windows text editor

  If you want to release something on windows you match an extra byte on the ends of lines

  try to punish and troll its users for using it

  You sound like a lawyer grasping at straws instead of 
  someone with a reasonable perspective that wouldn't be
  hypocritical when flipped around.

  No one has to care about zig, it's a niche language that doesn't
  care about its users, it's irrelevant except for hacker news threads.

  it takes longer to write an error message than it does it just split a line correctly

that's amateur level anti-windows user

much better to put a colon in a filename, or call part of your toolchain "aux.exe"

https://help.interfaceware.com/v6/windows-reserved-file-name...

works like a treat

At least, this change will make source files not portable, which is obviously bad.

Use a real operating system and problem solved?

Yep, agreed. I think this would have been the better reason too, but anyway - I also don't think it is so important either way.

The big problem still remains: corporations control WAY too much in general.

[dead]

   It just seems like someone got upset about something they can't articulate

Dunno, they don't play well to the HN crowd I thought it was pretty clear what their pain points with GitHub were.

  ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself.

  all you had to do is update your CI

> I completely agree with this. I performed really poorly on this axis. I’m sorry to the Zig community for that. I’ll take my L and get back to working on std.Io and the rest of the roadmap. [1]

[1] https://ziggit.dev/t/migrating-from-github-to-codeberg-zig-p...

Reddit is trying to steer everyone into using their mobile app, which schlorps up as much personal data as it possibly can. I normally don’t go in for the whole mustache twirling thing, but given their previous actions in shutting down all third party apps, I’m fine in this case with accusing them of outright malice.

Sometimes people need to be shocked awake. Reality is harsh, and gentle language doesn't change that.

Derision is legitimate way to change behavior when other avenues fail.

A reasonable person that's acting maliciously can be reasoned to stop their behavior.

An unreasonable person that's acting in good faith cannot be reasoned to stop their behavior because they are stupid.

If after attempts to reason with the unreasonable fail, it is not an insult or ad hominem attack to explain the person is acting stupidly.

>Insulting people is never a solution.

That can not be absolutely true.

> A righteous, passionate anger can be indistinguishable from love. ... love can be anger, anger can be love.

These are just word games. Blurring and mixing what we mean with different words. To say what? Passion takes different forms and can be a hell of a motivator? Nobody disputes that.

There's clearly a difference between anger and love. GP was addressing that difference and recommended to focus on the healthier of the two. That's good advice.

[dead]

which is unfortunate, because pre-AI, "but what at first seemed to be an innocent night of harmless serial murder quickly turned to something sinister." would just be a funny bit of writing.

Question: would you go to a public place and call a person who is listening to you a loser or a monkey with the risk of getting your face smashed in?

Companies do public announcement with the risk of getting sued left and right. Normal people chose careful words in public. In the Internet it seems different rules apply in public. Laypeople are not adjusting to corporate talk, laypeople are more and more aware of the public of the Internet and behave accordingly (most are, like in real life, mute)

He hid the comments he made and apologized to the Zig community for his behavior. He never apologized to the people he harmed (the 'losers' at GitHub in this context).

For my own PRs I like reading the changes again in the UI.

It is almost like getting someone else to proofread it since my mind isn’t as good at filling in the blanks like it is when looking at the code in the editor I wrote it in.

How you treat others says everything about you and nothing about the other person.

In this case, the unnecessary insults detract from the otherwise important message, and reflect poorly on Zig. They were right to edit it.

Even Linus doesn’t act that way anymore. Here’s him a few years ago:

> This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for.

> Especially at times when I made it personal. In my quest for a better patch, this made sense to me. I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry. The above is basically a long-winded way to get to the somewhat painful personal admission that hey, I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely.

> I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately.

He took time off and he’s better now. What you call “political correctness” is what I and others call “basic professionalism”. It took Linus 25 years to understand that. I can only hope that the people who hero worshipped him and adopted a similar attitude can also mature.

>Is political correctness necessary to have a thriving community / open source project?

Not at all, but this reads like childishness rather than political correctness.

What does any of this have to do with political correctness?

Not being a dick is quite a different thing than political correctness.

Makes me wonder how much to the mass strife and confusion of the internet is simply down to people not knowing what the words they use mean?

Hmm I don’t think any of the revisions are about being PC but rather not making juvenile comments. Linus has definitely made a lot of harsh inflammatory comments to others, I don’t think it’s the right thing to do and shows his character but at the same time for me at least it comes across as a smart pompous jerk who says things in the wrong way but at least usually has some kernel of a point.

The Zig comments come off has highly immature, maybe because they are comments made to unknown people, calling folks losers or monkeys just crosses some line to me. Telling someone to stfu is not great but calling groups of people monkeys feels worse.

Calling the devs of Actions "monkeys" has nothing to do about being un-PC or not. It's just plain rude and deeply insulting. It has no place in an a public announcement such as this.

Also, Torvalds was rightfully called out on his public behaviour and he's corrected himself.

Linus famously was quite strict and cursed quite a bit when somebody pissed him off with stupidity.

It is politeness, not political correctness.

He represented his community with insulting words to the world. In higher ranks of IT it is all about communication. With his lack of proper words he showed these leaders, who decide about the adoption of Zig, that they do not want to communicate with him/the Zig community.

As a project/tech leader he is in the business of communications. He recognized this. See link in the article.

there's a big gulf between being politically correct and not being a jerk. In this case the community reps can present their concern, motivation and decision without insulting people. It's also not a smart or valid comment; give me any organization over 100 people and I can find something deeply flawed that it hase produced or a very bad decision. Do I then tag everybody who currently works for that organization as "a brain-dead idiot" or similar?

> "eager to inflict"

Eager to do what? If it sucks it sucks, but that's a very childish way to frame it, no one did anything on purpose or out of spite. That kind of silliness hurts the image of the project. But bad translation I suppose.

One can avoid being asshole even if it is not strictly speaking necessary. In fact, if you are an asshole when it is not necessary, then you are an asshole.

Not calling other software engineers 'losers' is not about political correctness. They're "losers" because they take their product on a path you don't like? Come on. Linus can be emotional in his posts because Linux is his "child".

They didn't make any comment on effectiveness.

I just want to point out that even if you are correct, as a Zig outsider, none of this is obvious. The situation just looks bad.

The claims of AI use were unsubstantiated and pure conjecture, which was pointed out by people who understand language, including me. Now it appears that the community has used an MIT attribution violation to make the Zigbook author a victim of DMCA abuse.

That doesn't look great to me. It doesn't look like a community I would encourage others to participate in.

> tried to claim a namespace on open-vsx

It seems reasonable for the zigbook namespace to belong to the zigbook author. That's generally how the namespaces work right? https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aeclipse%2Fopenvsx+namespa... https://github.com/eclipse/openvsx/wiki/Namespace-Access. IMO, this up there with the "but they were interested in crypto!" argument. The zigbook author was doing normal software engineer stuff, but somehow the community tries to twist it into something nefarious. The nefariousness is never stated because it's obviously absurd, but there's the clear attempt to imply wrongdoing. Unfortunately that just makes the community look as if they're trying hard to prosecute an innocent person in the court of public opinion.

> At a certain point, that starts to look outright malicious.

Malicious means "having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful". The Zig community looks malicious in this instance to me. Like you, I don't have complete information. But from the information I have the community response looked malicious, punitive, harassing and arguably defamatory. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in any open source community.

Again, prior to the MIT attribution claim there was no evidence the author of Zigbook had done anything at all wrong. Among other things, there was no evidence they had lied about the use of AI. Malicious and erroneous accusations of AI use happen frequently these days, including here on HN.

Judging by the strength of the reaction, the flimsiness of the claims and the willingness to abuse legal force against the zigbook author, my hunch is that there is some other reason zigbook was controversial that isn't yet publicly known. Given the timing it possibly has to do with Anthropic's acquisition of Bun.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the actual claim was that Zigbook had not complied with the MIT license's attribution clause for code someone believed was copied. MIT only requires attribution for copies of "substantial portions" of code, and the code copied was 22 lines.

Does that count as substantial? I'm not sure because I'm not a lawyer, but this was really an issue about definitions in an attribution clause over less code than people regularly copy from stack overflow without a second thought. By the time this accusation was made, the Zigbook author was already under attack from the community which put them in a defensive posture.

Now, just to be clear, I think the book author behaved poorly in response. But the internet is full of young software engineers who would behave poorly if they wrote a book for a community and the community turned around and vilified them for it. I try not to judge individuals by the way they behave on their worst days. But I do think something like a community has a behavior and culture of its own and that does need to be guided with intention.

> I do think that it was weird to focus on the AI aspect so much. AI is going to pollute everything going forward whether you like it or not.

The bigger issue is that they claimed no AI was used. That’s an outright lie which makes you think if you should trust anything else about it.

> And honestly who cares, either it is a good ressource for learning or it’s not. You have to decide that for yourself and not based on whether AI helped writing it.

You have no way of knowing if something is a good resource for learning until you invest your time into it. If it turns out it’s not a good resource, your time was wasted. Worse, you may have learned wrong ideas you now have to unlearn. If something was generated with an LLM, you have zero idea which parts are wrong or right.

> very little empirical evidence

Evidence is easy to turn up and cite:

https://security.googleblog.com/2025/11/rust-in-android-move...

https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-saf...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/blog/2019/07/a-proactiv...

https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/02/rewriting-a-browser-compon...

Not any longer. The rewrite which destroyed performance uses ReactJS https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44799861

What is terrible is that new developers think that this has been the usual poor state of things...this is why Zig & others moving to alternate platforms is good.

I'll be honest, I don't use github often. So if they're wrong, well, they fucked up in their complaint that could be redirected to one of many other websites instead.

I am surprised by the comments about GH CI. I first started using CI on GL, then moved to GH and found GH's to let me get things done more easily.

It's been years through and the ease of doing simple things is not always indicative of difficult things. Often quite the contrary...

And this is the core problem with the modern platform internet. One victor (or a handful) take the lead in a given niche, and it becomes impossible to get away from them without great personal cost, literal, moral, or labor, and usually a combo of all three. And then that company has absolutely no motivation at all to prioritize the quality of the product, merely to extract all the value from the user-base as possible.

Facebook has been on that path for well over a decade, and it shows. The service itself is absolute garbage. Users stay because everyone they know is already there and the groups they love are there, and they just tolerate being force-fed AI slop and being monitored. But Facebook is not GROWING as a result, it's slowly dying, much like it's aging userbase. But Facebook doesn't care because no one in charge of any company these days can see further than next quarter's earnings call.

There's definitely a few phases of Github, feature and popularity wise.

   1. Free hosting with decent UX
   2. Social features
   3. Lifecycle automation features

In this vein, it doing new stuff with AI isn't out of keeping with its development path, but I do think they need to pick a lane and decide if they want to boost professional developer productivity or be a platform for vibe coding.

And probably, if the latter, fork that off into a different platform with a new name. (Microsoft loves naming things! Call it 'Codespaces 365 Live!')

Technically so was BitBucket but it chose mercurial over git initially. If you are old enough you will remember articles comparing the two with mercurial getting slightly more favorable reviews.

And for those who don’t remember SourceForge, it had two major problems in DevEx: first you couldn’t just get your open source project published. It had to be approved. And once it did, you had an ugly URL. GitHub had pretty URLs.

I remember putting up my very first open source project back before GitHub and going through this huge checklist of what a good open source project must have. Then seeing that people just tossed code onto GitHub as is: no man pages, no or little documentation, build instructions that resulted in errors, no curated changelog, and realizing that things are changing.

And GitHub got free hosting and support from Engine Yard when they were starting out. I remember it being a big deal when we had to move them from shared hosting to something like 3 dedicated supermicro servers.

Stars, issues closed, PRs, commits, all are pointless metrics.

The metrics you want are mostly ones they don't and can't have. Number of dependent projects for instance.

The metrics they keep are just what people have said, a way to gameify and keep people interested.

that's not enough, i still have to engage with contributors on github. on issues and pull requests at a minimum.

OK, indicators of interest. Would you bet on a project nobody cares about?

Why are you as surprised?

People don't just share their stargazing plots "for fun", but because it has meaning for them.

> Notably [go] ended up giving up on [gerrit]

That's not accurate. They more or less only use Gerrit still. They started accepting Github PRs, but not really, see https://go.dev/doc/contribute#sending_a_change_github

> You will need a Gerrit account to respond to your reviewers, including to mark feedback as 'Done' if implemented as suggested

The comments are still gerrit, you really shouldn't use Github.

The Go reviewers are also more likely than usual to assume you're incompetent if your PR comes from Github, and the review will accordingly be slower and more likely to be rejected, and none of the go core contributors use the weird github PR flow.

> The main thing I like about Github's PRs is that it's a system I'm already familiar with and have a login/account for. It's tedious going to contribute to a project to find I have to sign up for and learn another system.

codeberg supports logging in with GitHub accounts, and the PR interface is exactly the same

you have nothing new to learn!

I don't enough experience w/ Buildbot or Travis to comment on those, but Jenkins?

I get that it got the job done and was standard at one point, but every single Jenkins instance I've seen in the wild is a steaming pile of ... unpatched, unloved, liability. I've come to understand that it isn't necessarily Jenkins at fault, it's teams 'running' their own infrastructure as an afterthought, coupled with the risk of borking the setup at the 'wrong time', which is always. From my experience this pattern seems nearly universal.

Github actions definitely has its warts and missing features, but I'll take managed build services over Jenkins every time.

My issue with Github CI is that it doesn't run your code in a container. You just have github-runner-1 user and you need to manually check out repository, do your build and clean up after you're done with it. Very dirty and unpredictable. That's for self-hosted runner.

Gitlab is much better

Well then why 99% of GH Actions functionality even exists.

And now it opens... some VSCode-esque editor in the browser that asks me to sign-in? Why would I want something even more resource-hungry and convoluted just to look up a random thing once in a while?

It's just how straightforward it is. With GitHub's fork-then-PR approach I would have to clone, fork, add a remote to my local fork, push to said remote, and open the PR.

With agit flow I just have to clone the repository I want to contribute to, make my changes, and push (to a special ref, but still just push to the target repo).

I have been making some small contributions to Guix when they were still using email for patches, and that (i.e. send patches directly to upstream) already felt more natural than what GitHub propagates. And agit feels like the git-native interpretation of this email workflow.

Code search over all of Gitlab (even if available) wouldn't help much when many of the interesting repos might be on Github. To be truly useful, it would need to index repos across many different forges. But there's a tension in presenting that to users if you're afraid that they might exit your ecosystem to go to another forge.

Yeah, they were down last week too. It's hard to run an open git forge on a small volunteer team, the workload is read and write heavy with endless "customers" (or bots).

Codeberg is a non-profit btw

You can donate here: https://donate.codeberg.org/

Setup recurring donations on liberapay: https://liberapay.com/codeberg/donate

Or join as a member here: https://join.codeberg.org/

Forgejo is GPL 3, with the Github stuff apparently even running it on owned device is tied to a per user per month bill, and I have no idea if code is available and editable just having a look at https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/githubente...

I, too, am extremely interested in development on Tangled, but I miss two features from GitHub - universal search and Releases. the web frontend of Tangled is so fast that I am still getting used to the speed, and jj-first features like stacked PRs are just awesome. kinda reminds me of how Linux patch submitting works.

3 of the most exciting decentralized GitHub alternatives being developed today:

  Tangled (2024, ATP)
  Radicle (2019, IPFS) 
  Codeberg (2018, Gitea fork which supports decentralized protocols)

I've been contemplating this for almost two years. Gitlab has gotten very bloated and despite disabling a number of services in the config, it continues to require increasingly more compute and RAM; we don't even use the integrated Postgres database.

There are a few things that keep me on Gitlab, but the main one is the quality of the CI/CD system and the gitlab runners.

I looked at Woodpecker, but it seems so docker-centric and we are, uh, not.

The other big gulf is issues and issue management. Gitlab CE is terrible; weird limitations (no epics unless you pay), broken features, UX nightmares, but from the looks of it Forjego is even more lacking in this area? Despite this seeming disdain, the other feature we regularly use is referencing issue numbers in commits to tie work together easily. On this one, I can see the answer as "be the change - contribute this to Forgejo" and I'm certainly willing. Still, it's currently a blocker.

But my hopes in putting this comment out there is that perhaps others have suggestions or insight I'm missing?

Not just them. For example, Qt self hosted cgit got ddos just two weeks ago. No idea why random open source projects getting attacked.

> in the past 48 hours, code.qt.io has been under a persistent DDoS attack. The attackers utilize a highly distributed network of IP addresses, attempting to obstruct services and network bandwidth.

https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2025-Nove...

DDoS are crazy cheap now, it could be a random person for the lulz, or just as a test or demo (though I suspect Codeberg aren't a bit enough target to be impressive there).

Big tech would be far more interested in slurping data than DDoS'ing them.

An issue with comments, linked to a PR with review comments, the commit stack implementing the feature, and further commits addressing comments is probably valuable data to train a coding agent.

Serving all that data is not just a matter of cloning the repo. It means hitting their (public, documented) API end points, that are likely more costly to run.

And if they rate limit the scrappers, the unscrupulous bunch will start spreading requests across the whole internet.

> Who would have an incentive to spend resources

That's not how threat analysis works. That's a conspiracy theory. You need to consider the difficulty of achieving it.

Otherwise I could start speculating which large NAS provider is trying to DDoS me, when in fact it's a script kiddie.

As for who would have the most incentives? Unscrupulous AI scrapers. Every unprotected site experiences a flood of AI scrapers/bots.

>The only party I can think of would be Github.

I think it's not malice, but stupidity. IoT made even a script kiddie capable of running a huge botnet capable of DDoSing anything but CloudFlare.

its easier for MS to buy codeberg and close it than to spent time and money to DDOS things

Try exposing a paswordless SSH server to outside to see what happens. It'll be tried immediately, non-stop.

Now, all the servers I run has no public SSH ports, anymore. This is also why I don't expose home-servers to internet. I don't want that chaos at my doorstep.

    1. Never tell everything you know and seen.
    2. 

I am almost certain that the zig project will somehow manage to survive anyway without you following them.

And now you know about an alternative to gh that isn't a for profit company! Yay!

There have been at least 3 waves of AI before the LLM generation. 70s , 80s and late 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter

Early 2010s had a lot of neural networks AI stuff going on and it certainly became a minor hype cycle as well though that kind of resulted in the current LLM wave.

I guess Github uses a lot of cache vs Codeberg.

Sure, it depends on your internet connection. But for Codeberg I see a blank page for 3-4 seconds until it shows something. On a big repo like Zig the delay is even worse.

On Github any page loads gradually and you don't see a blank page even initially.

> I mean, … the outages are a big part of it. But those outages also extending to taking out my own hardware (e.g., through bugs like the above consuming resources on my own compute) is just double the pain.

Never needed to run my own runner, but yes the outages are annoying.

> Artifact APIs will return garbage results during a run. Note that the APIs are separate from the GHA actions for interacting with artifacts, and the latter uses undocumented APIs, presumably b/c the documented APIs are buggy AF.

Never had an issue either I've only used the GitHub CLI to upload artifacts to releases.

> needs.… will just return junk data, if you typo.

Was not aware, but I have never typod. I'm wondering if a linter such as actionlint would catch this.

> Builds of actions are not cached, making them rather slow. Many GH official actions hack around this by pointing the tag/branch (e.g., @v4) at a pre-built artifact.

Is there not caching actions you can use?

> The pricing is high, compared to other offerings.

Try blacksmith.sh, half the price, faster and unlimited parallelisation etc.

> The interface is just FUBAR: e.g., stdin is a pipe, which will wreak havoc on some commands that change their behavior when piped to. stdout & stderr are pipes, which although GHA ostensibly supports colored output, this basically renders it useless.

I always call out to a task runner, I don't have command inside the workflow so never experienced this.

> Jobs, steps, actions are conceptual mud. There's a few ideas, like "execute this thing" in there, but its all jumbled up/duplicated.

Is it not each job has multiple steps, each step is an action?

> Container settings are configured per-job, so if you want to run some steps in one container, and some in another, but in the same job, you're just going to be left out to dry.

Yeah something you can't do, but never ran into this issue either. Ways around it, such as calling out to a script which does volume mounts and run things in a container using `docker run`. Or just cut up the problem so you don't need to and have multiple jobs or something.

> Secrets are hard to manage, and even harder to not leak.

For a personal account agreed, no way to set a secret for every repository. Recently I have been doing.

``` gh repo list --json name,owner --limit 100 | jq -r '.[] | "\(.owner.login)/\(.name)"' | while read repo; do if gh secret list --repo "${repo}" --json name | jq -e '.[] | select(.name=="EXAMPLE")' > /dev/null 2>&1; then gh secret set EXAMPLE --repo "${repo}" --body "${EXAMPLE}" fi done ```

> The expression language has all sorts of corners, like coerced types and functions with parse-time side-effects!.

Again I don't really have logic inside a workflow, I call out to Make or a script or something so it has never been an issue.

92% uptime? What do you do the other 8% of the time? Do you just invoke git push in a loop and leave your computer on?

For my money, the scorpion is halfway across the river and y’all are about to become the frog. I haven’t touched a windows machine in 15 years and I’d really like to continue that streak to the grave. Gaben is working hard to become my new favorite tech person by trying to claw gaming off of the PC. I really hope he wins.

PR#1: dough PR#2: toppings

You first send PR#1, then PR#2 on top of the first one.

The diff for PR#1 will show dough stuff. The diff for PR#2 will show toppings in relation to dough.

People can review them asynchronously. If you merge PR#1, PR#2 will automatically target main (that's where dough went) now.

In this arrangement, I use to cross-mention the PRs by number (a link will exist in both). I also like to keep the second one draft, but that depends on the team practices.

I don't understand why you would close the second PR when the first gets merged. It should lose the dependency automagically, which is exactly what happens if you branch correctly.

You can ignore them yourself, but people will get annoyed, take to social media, post "this project ignores PRs" "dead project" "they're not inclusive" etc. without context, and those things can gain momentum out of nowhere and have real consequences. And there will goalpost-shifting again, from "just mirror to GH" to "just accept PRs on GH too, why are they being so obstinate" and then further along.

The Linux kernel is unlikely to get those and can survive that even if it does, but your average FOSS project can be severely damaged in terms of reputation, contribution, usage, etc., by this kind of stuff, even if you want to dismiss it as just "social media fluttering". Easier and safer just to keep things clean and clearly at one place.

> They already disallow mirroring.

In which direction? (I'd check myself but they're down...). That doesn't sound very open to me.

That… makes squatting more of a problem not less.

That's the beauty of email-based approaches. You can just clone, do your changes and `git send-email`. Done.

I think it would've been far easier to build a decent GUI around that flow, with some email integration + a patch preview tool, rather than adding activitypub, but oh well.

I literally logged into codeberg using my GitHub account. It's two clicks of the mouse to do this.

[flagged]

Uhh we're talking about the pull request to safe_sleep, right? Not sure why you take that condescending tone when anecdata goes AGAINST your position.

Bun still exists. as does tigerbeetle

As Bun uses Zig quite a lot, I expect them to be quite active in the Zig forums and submitting patches and feature requests.

I was thinking of things like AI-generated patches submitted by Bun to the Zig project, or feature requests by Bun for AI-specific use cases... that could create a really bad atmosphere between Zig and Bun people if the Zig Foundation continuously rejects their contributions/requests/discussions.

I very openly don't have places to be