On 5 June 2018 at 23:10, Matěj Cepl <mcepl@cepl.eu> wrote:
On 2018-06-04, 23:38 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> No, but Guido is right: neither is anyone else.
>
> In that regard, Microsoft is probably *more* likely to keep pumping
> money into a failing business if it gives them a strategic advantage,
> compared to other investors with no long-term strategy other than "get
> aquired by Google/Microsoft/Oracle/Apple".

Let me just to say here, that gitlab.com has export of
repository together with all metadata. Just saying.

I was actually looking into this recently to see if the repository import feature could be used to run a regularly updated repository mirror that included all issues and PR comments in addition to the code, and noticed that one of the things that GitLab really requires to create a high quality export is for folks to have linked their GitLab instance accounts with their GitHub ones - if you don't already have that account mapping in place, then the import currently loses the ability to link users correctly with their comments and commits (We have a partial mapping due to folks adding their account names to bugs.python.org for CLA signing purposes, but not in a form that GitLab could actually use, since they need the API access authorisation).

That said, I personally don't think this changes much about our relationship with GitHub, except for the fact that we're now dealing with a large publicly traded multinational with relatively transparent financial reports rather than a smallish privately held company that was only financially accountable to the venture capitalists backing it. I'm more confident in my ability to predict Microsoft's business incentives based on the prevailing technology landscape than I am in my ability to predict the actions of a VC firm like Andreesen Horowitz :)

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia