Fw: Re: Re: GitHub reliability

FYI

Best,

Peter

https://randommathguy.blogspot.com/

Ph.D. from Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia

Microsoft Research, J.W.Goethe University and ST Microelectronics Alumnus

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 3:59 PM

From: "Codeberg e. V." <[email protected]>

To: "Peter Taraba" <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Fw: [boost] Re: GitHub reliability

Hi Peter,

There's nobody working on such Feature in Forgejo, even if someone

starts now it will take months to get in a state that could be merged.

Most projects have simply opted for a dedicated "Discussions" repository

where the issues are used as discussions. Threads are not a thing there,

but most have found peace with the "Quoted reply" feature where you can

quote parts of people's comments and have it nicely formatted.

Kind Regards

Gusted

Codeberg e.V.

--

https://codeberg.org

Codeberg e.V. – Arminiusstraße 2-4 – 10551 Berlin – Germany

Registered at registration court Amtsgericht Charlottenburg VR36929.

On 5/12/26 1:47 AM, Peter Taraba wrote:

> Any help with this?:

>

> >> "My main problem with Codeberg is the lack of a feature similar to GH

> >> Discussions. Those are not always enabled on repos, but I see them as

> >> essential for large-scope projects with many hidden users, old

> history and

> >> a way to reach out. They act essentially as a projec-hosted forum that

> >> allows signaling and preserving community debates around APIs, usages,

> >> complaints etc."

> Thank you!

> Best regards,

> Peter Taraba

>

> https://randommathguy.blogspot.com/

> Ph.D. from Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia

> Microsoft Research, J.W.Goethe University and ST Microelectronics Alumnus

> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2026 at 1:08 AM

> *From:* "Arnaud Becheler via Boost" <[email protected]>

> *To:* "Boost developers' mailing list" <[email protected]>

> *Cc:* "Arnaud Becheler" <[email protected]>

> *Subject:* [boost] Re: GitHub reliability

> I agree with Alex here.

>

> Although I would be happy to ditch Microsoft for an European solution, my

> main problem is that the Boost.Graph users we just connected with and

> promised less friction would be affected in how they participate in and

> engage with Boost.Graph.

>

> My main problem with Codeberg is the lack of a feature similar to GH

> Discussions. Those are not always enabled on repos, but I see them as

> essential for large-scope projects with many hidden users, old history and

> a way to reach out. They act essentially as a projec-hosted forum that

> allows signaling and preserving community debates around APIs, usages,

> complaints etc.

>

> They are functionally different from issues:

> - Issues are for bug reports, code defects, and actionable items, the

> quality-to-noise ratio for a good issue is high.

> - Discussions are a support/forum space for the project: questions,

> feature

> ideas, announcements, polls, "how do I configure this on XYZ" type help.

> Not necessarily actionable, although if relevant these can be converted to

> issues.

>

> Without a dedicated discussion space, issues become the recipient

> space for

> items that are not always actionable. The BGL issue tracker is somewhat

> encumbered by items that would rather belong in Discussions.

>

> What particularly worries me is that we heavily and successfully depended

> on GH Discussions to announce and organize the BGL Workshop last

> Wednesday,

> as I believe they are an essential part of revitalizing BGL and its

> community. We were positively surprised by the amount of participation and

> the quality of the feedback that the single announcement page collected:

> https://github.com/boostorg/graph/discussions/466

>

> Leaving GH would mean dropping this feature, which has been discussed for

> years at Codeberg ( https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/410 ). It

> would deprive BGL maintainers from their most efficient way to reach users

> at a critical time. It would also send a terrible message to BGL users who

> invested in those discussions and strongly asked for less friction, not

> more.

>

> I am aware that 1) what holds for Boost.Graph may not be true for other

> projects 2) vinnie said there was no urgency

>

> So as long as Github shittification makes maintainers lives harder but

> keep

> users happy, I would be tempted to absorb the cost at least for now.

>

> Best wishes,

> Arnaud Becheler

>

>

> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 9:29 AM Alexander Grund via Boost <

> [email protected]> wrote:

>

> > Am 11.05.26 um 04:18 schrieb Klemens Morgenstern via Boost:

> > > I think the first attempt should be to spin up a mirror of either

> Forgejo

> > > and/or Gitea

> > > and see how it works.

> > > And then we set a date, at which we disable issues and PRs on Github

> > > and use github as a pure (and automated) mirror.

> > >

> > >

> > >> If for example we want to transfer the open issues then we should

> start

> > >> collecting them now, because of rate limits (it could take weeks or

> > months

> > >> to collect all the data which is not stored in the repo).

> > >>

> > > Both have an "import from github" function, that allows you to

> import a

> > > full project.

> > > This is probably a good default, unless a maintainer wants to do it

> > another

> > > way (e.g. only transfer certains issues).

> >

> > TBH: Not really keen on that.

> > I'm aware of the sunken costs fallacy but there IS a lot of effort in

> > and around GitHub that we would/might loose.

> > That includes experience of us and users on how to do things there and

> > how to handle issues difficulties.

> > E.g. Boost.CI and the "reusable" workflow introduced by Jim last year

> > helps to have up to date configurations for lot's of Boost libraries,

> > especially those where CI is/was rooting away as maintainers were either

> > not that active anymore or simply didn't want to keep track of the

> > changes required for very new or old configurations.

> > Drone is only part way on that state where a new compiler can be tested

> > and added to dozens of libraries in a single commit to a central

> > repository.

> >

> > So far my work on GitHub wasn't affected to an extent I'd even

> notice much.

> > Especially with Boost we are not that highly active that even a day

> > outage would be catastrophic. I'd put it as "mildly annoying" instead.

> >

> > And the article shared by Vinnie [1] sounds like there is some hope:

> >

> > > GitHub. It is critical global infrastructure, and it is struggling

> > > under the weight of millions (if not billions) of AI agents spewing

> > > out code.

> >

> > > GitHub’s stated priorities are now availability first, capacity

> > > second, new features third. That’s the right order,

> >

> > So IMO this is a temporary struggle with the changing landscape of

> > software development and MS at least seems to be aware and dedicated to

> > handle that.

> >

> > So I would wait for this to calm down again but keep stuff like this in

> > mind.

> > If anyone has the time to test alternatives on what is viable if it

> > comes to that, it would certainly be good to know.

> > Especially how well issues and references to PRs, commits and other

> > issues are kept as that proved to be useful in multiple occasions to me.

> > But I wouldn't want to do the switch, at least not now.

> >

> > - Alex

> >

> > [1] https://leaddev.com/software-quality/whats-gone-wrong-at-github

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > Boost mailing list -- [email protected]

> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

> > https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/

> > Archived at:

> >

> https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XLH3UJ65KVKARUAQFCSFAPOUTLXYN4JI/

> >

> _______________________________________________

> Boost mailing list -- [email protected]

> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

> https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/

> Archived at:

> https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/4OKKCF5US4WZXXC4WFMNMSFAA5KIHISO/

_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/KXEI3GEYP7K3YZFOAZ6MOFMCYRJB5G2S/