> More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys
This writing really does not reflect well on Zig. If you have technical issues with Github, fine: cite them. But leave ad hominems like "losers" and "monkeys" out of it.
> Examples of behavior that contribute to creating a positive environment include:
> - Using welcoming and inclusive language.
> - Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences.
> - Showing empathy towards others.
> - Showing appreciation for others’ work.
It’s just a document.
However, in this case, the presence of the code of conduct has made it trivially easy to point out the language as wrong in a way whoever wrote this for Zig cannot refute.
It’s working exactly as it should.
The CoC is not there to protect the community, but to protect all the bad actors and give ammunition to attack the good ones.
Happens every time, the maintainers who add CoCs to projects have no problem being an ahole to others.
Update: I know some people love their CoCs, but answer me this, how is this kind of childish name calling allowed and still online, if what I wrote above is not true?
I don't particularly care for either Zig or Github, but...
they do precisely cite the technical issues. That snippet links to a Github discussion comment https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/3792#issuecomment-3...
(reproduced below)
"The bug in this "safe sleep" script is obvious from looking at it: if the process is not scheduled for the one-second interval in which the loop would return (due to $SECONDS having the correct value), then it simply spins forever. That can easily happen on a CI machine under extreme load. When this happens, it's pretty bad: it completely breaks a runner until manual intervention. On Zig's CI runner machines, we observed multiple of these processes which had been running for hundreds of hours, silently taking down two runner services for weeks."
"I don't understand how we got here. Even ignoring the pretty clear bug, what makes this Bash script "safer" than calling into the POSIX standard sleep utility? It doesn't seem to solve any problem; meanwhile, it's less portable and needlessly eats CPU time by busy-waiting."
"The sloppy coding which is evident here, as well as the inaction on core Actions bugs (in line with the decay in quality of almost every part of GitHub's product), is forcing the Zig project to strongly consider moving away from GitHub Actions entirely. With this bug, and many others (severe workflow scheduling issues resulting in dozens of timeouts; logs randomly becoming inaccessible; random job cancellations without details; perpetually "pending" jobs), we can no longer trust that Actions can be used to implement reliable CI infrastructure. I personally would seriously encourage other projects, particularly any using self-hosted runners, to look carefully at the stability of Actions and ask themselves whether it is a solution worth sticking with long-term when compared with alternatives."
----
I agree that the writing in the blog post is more colorful than precise, but sanitizing every bit of expression dulls the internet. Humans invented language for a reason.
https://github.com/actions/runner/pull/3157/files
Is : doing something unusual in GH actions?
while (time() != timeout) {;}
The fixed loop is:
while (time() < timeout) {;}
Given that Github Actions is quite popular, probably wasting large amount of energy.
But probably good at generating billable Actions minutes.
One can only hope that not many people use sleeps to handle their CI race conditions, as that itself is also not a proper fix.
Where do you draw the line, then? Is a racist screed acceptable to you as long as the following paragraph references technical issues correctly?
The language in the blog post is insulting. Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet. Certainly you've made mistakes in your code before...or are you saying you've always written flawless code without errors?
These codes of conduct always seemed a bit superfluous to me, but after reading comments like these I can totally see why they are necessary.
To me all those mean the same thing, except the latter is more flavorful and makes my eyes less likely to glaze over.
> Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet.
Er.. so? Why should anyone be allowed into a position of responsibility where their code impacts millions of people if they can't handle the tiniest bit of strong feedback? It was, after all, a pretty egregious bug.
> Certainly you've made mistakes in your code before...or are you saying you've always written flawless code without errors?
I've definitely made mistakes, and also accept that my output might have on occasion been "monkey-esque". I don't see what's insulting about that; we are all human/animal.
And to many others, the difference is that one is informative, the other is likely to turn them off of the author and project forever.
I noticed that you never answered my question. If this is acceptable to you, where do you draw the line? If you can answer that question, maybe you'll be able to see the flaw in your argument.
Which is absolutely fine. It's their project, their website. If they can't be colorful on their own website, where else can they be! If it turns off some people, I'm sure the author is aware of the risk and happy with that risk.
I, for one, find this kind of colorful language refreshing. Everyone trying to be politically correct makes the internet a dull place.
Surely you have your own line on what is or is not acceptable discourse. What is it?
I do but I decline to share it here. I'm not going to shift this thread from what the author is doing on their website to my personal beliefs and boundaries!
All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. Where I set my boundaries has no bearing on what Andrew should write on their website.
If Andrew alienates people by his writing, it's his decision, his action, his consequences that he has to deal with. How does it matter where I draw the line?
I'm not the morality police. Nobody should be. I'd still take the article on its technical merits. As a random example, if Satoshi's paper called people using the banking system cattle, I'd still continue reading it.
> Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet
It would be absolutely fine, nobody is named specifically. He wasn't like Josh Examplemann working on Actions is a piece of shit that botches any feature he touches. Nobody is going to remember a blog post and forever hold anyone that worked on Actions to an unhirable status. And personally, I think it would be good for people to feel some shame for having implemented a feature in such a terrible way. It's not like they were told by their managers to commit these the way that they did. Calling into the sleep binary wouldn't even be more work.
Whoever is behind the new React Start Menu in Windows
along with whoever is responsible for the Chrome Web Environment Integrity
along with whoever is behind the design of OSX Tahoe
along with anyone who is working on Windows Copilot that screenshots your screen
should be ashamed of themselves. The more articles that do that, the better. They are not doing good.
Ad hominem happens when someone undermines the argument based on the speaker's background. Here they are not undermining any argument. They're just name calling. This is name calling, not ad hominem.
I get frustrated with tech all the time! I get it. Grr when Actions feels so irritatingly misbehaved…
But how you handle or fail to handle your frustration demonstrates the competence of your character and speaks volumes of what you’d be like to work with.
The specific error they are criticizing is extremely egregious, akin to builder declaring a house without a roof complete. “failing and deserving to be called a monkey” is a criticism being levied against a 0/100 level mistake, not a mere minor mistake as you are claiming.
While it might be desirable to use less colorful language, it is frankly challenging to express the sheer level of grossly incompetent organizational ineptitude on display here in a reviewed and delivered product actively causing negative customer impact for literal years which is trivially fixed and yet has been ignored.
Customers of Github should be infuriated that Github gleefully foists such utterly defective software upon them. It is hard to get that across in dispassionate writing.
I can't speak for others. But if I am screwing up as badly as GitHub is, I'd rather someone calls me a loser and monkey for it. It's like someone splashing ice cold water on my face and showing me the reality. It's going to be very uncomfortable, yes. But I'll learn from it and try not to screw up so badly again. I find this kind of natural outburst refreshing really.
and as of when was GitHub known for its snappiness?
A pity. Saw Zig as something rising but with this kind of toxicity, no thanks.
Isn't this the status quo? At least hard requirement for JS, that is. Google's homepage started requiring this recently.
Linux kernel's git, openwrt, esp32.com, and many many others now require it too, via dreaded "Making sure you're not a bot" thing:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44962529
If anything, github is (thankfully) behind the curve here - at least some basics do work without JS.
Anyway, yes, "infinite monkeys on typewriters" seemed to be the relevant meaning of "monkeys" here.
Elitism is far from the worst character trait unpaid code janitors can be expected to have.
I'm not going to touch the political parts. But my main point is that the migration itself is obviously not well done, he isn't even migrating issues nor migrating perks for sponsors, splitting the community and attention apart. You could even say that he's critical of people who keep using github sponsors. In my view the text is implying that you are hurting ziglang if you keep using this thing that is a liability for ziglang... oh the horror of giving someone money in a way he doesn't like. People like this forget that contributors are doing free work for them too, it's not just one way. Everything that creates friction for them is real work you just caused them.
You're probably better off for it to be honest.
Sounds like a great thing compared to the sanitized corpo bullshit from nowadays. Microsoft bought themselves into OSS with github and each project has a bland CoC.
It’s pathetic. Even the github monkeys know deep down that this is wrong.
Having low patience is a quirk of our nerd culture, and now that the woke season has ended, it seems to be going back to how it has always been!
GHA in particular is a hot mess, I’m as surprised as a decade ago that anybody is using this crap. IMHO it’s bugs as a service kind of product, and the bugs start at the core design with the ‘pretend yaml but actually an unholy mix of shell, js and json’ language.
We're at the tail end of a long decline.
It is a call to others to do the same.
They are also protective of the donation funds they receive, which has been wasted by defects in GitHub's CI.
And Microsoft... they acquire or partner with companies, then mismanage or make inferior clones of existing products, and make money out of it. That's their business model. SCP 86-DOS (MS-DOS), Apple Macintosh (Windows), Sybase ASE (SQL Server), IBM OS/2 (NT), Mosaic (Internet Explorer), and then acquisitions like Minecraft, Xamarin (dead), Skype (dead), GitHub, LinkedIn (sea of fake jobs and ghosting).
People don't buy their products by choice, they are trapped into them. You got Windows because your computer came with it and the software you use needs it, or you are forced to use it at work. You use MS Office because you have to use the MS Office format to collaborate with others, maybe at school or at work, or with the government (every government in the world has been lobbied to adopt their products). They tried hard to go further than this and failed, but they keep trying persistently. They failed to own the Internet (Microsoft Network), they failed to own the web (Internet Explorer only websites), they failed to own mobile (Windows Phone), now they are trying once with AI, going as far as taking snapshots of everything you do (MS Recall). Imagine being told your computer, bought with your own money, is no longer yours (MS Pluton, forced Windows updates, forced advertisement)... and even being happy with it or not caring about it at all... or getting to work every morning to make all of that happen... is not that what we would call a monkey loser?
My deep respects to Andrew.
I've heard people call other people "monkeys" before in a work setting. it's never good. Fact is, you don't need to call anyone names or insult them.
The takeaway for me is that the Zig project is led by people who are extremely immature and toxic. I simply don't trust any decision these people make. If you can't bring yourself to respectfully disagree with other human beings, if you resort to calling names and insults targetted at developers because of bugs, then i don't trust you to not backdoor your own code, or do something harmful to those who rely on your work because of some drama, spat or activism.
Even if actual political activists did this it would be unacceptable. If you called Netanyahu a monkey because of his Gaza genocide, most people who are pro-palestine will try to cancel you! Not because they think highly of him, but because it hurts the cause more than it helps.
Andrew: It seems you don't respect your own self or your community enough to set an example of decorum and civility. You've made Zig a platform for your own personal shitposting. Please do better!
immature and toxic : welcome to every big tech , you don't want part of them either, right ?
Either way, I like linux but I've avoided operating systems like freebsd and openbsd for less, so I agree. I've said plenty enough against Linus when he did lose his temper and started cussing at people.
And to be clear, I consider people who defend him (and in this case Andrew) far worse of an individual than the original offenders. People mess up, they're led astray by being put in positions of leadership and authority. That I get, and that's why i'm calling him out here. If he was random person, I wouldn't have bothered. But the enablers and defenders are the real problem. I hope you're not one of them. If you are, I consider you people responsible for every single work place bullying and toxic environment out there. People do great things without being classless uncivilized bullies.
Do you have an example or two of poor decisions that push you away so strongly?
The important observation for me is that he didn't know where to draw the line, and this is regarding people he doesn't work with, unknown/random Microsoft employees. Will he cross the line if someone he does know and trust does something he disagrees with? I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the bar is high when it comes to trusted software like programming language compilers.
I wish Zig all the success, but only if it's community and the tech community as a whole can hold it's leadership accountable instead of making excuses and defending him like this. It's ok to tell people you admire and respect they screwed up.
I don't defend Linus either, but I don't consider him calling someone a monkey or dehumanizing people either. If he has, please send me the lkml archives, I've been on the fence with going full on Apple anyways :)
FWIW I've never programmed a line of code in zig and I don't know who this developer is.
All I got from it was "seems like GitHub is starting to deteriorate pretty hard and this guy's fed up and moving his project and leaving some snark behind".
Your reading of the current political climate is very different to mine.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/top-story-industry-partner...
There is a purity spiral that organizations can enter when they start doing this, which ends up with you shoving yourself into a cold dark corner of the internet and still not being completely detached from the badness because Cisco provides infrastructure for nearly every major weapons manufacturer and defense department globally.
Hilarious how the offender on "exhibit A" [1] is the same one from the other post that made the frontpage a couple of days ago [2].
I don't know enough about the project to know if it makes any sense, but the Zig contributor seemed confused (at least about the title).
But yeah hard to say
the bootlicking behavior must must be like crack for wannabes. jfc
>I did not write a single line of code but carefully shepherded AI over the course of several days and kept it on the straight and narrow.
>AI: I need to keep track of variables moving across registers. This is too hard, let’s go shopping… Me: Hey, don’t any no shortcuts!
>My work was just directing, shaping, cajoling and reviewing.
How people can say that without the slightest bit of reflection on whether they're right or just spitting BS
After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it.
Honestly speaking I like how big projects are exploring new hosting options. But there is no need to attack other platforms like this to promote your new host.
The CI service itself is an absolute trash fire caused by the usual Microsoft NIH, and if they have financial means not to deal with it anymore, I see no reason for them to waste their limited development time on dealing with it.
Also, the big part of that issue is people are incentivized to make their GitHub profile look good to have a higher chance of getting hired. Any non-mainstream platform is not as compelling to get social credits.
https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-a...
[1]: https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-onwards-and-u...
Jokes aside, the technical depth it takes to make that one server run is impressive. That makes me more interested in codeberg, not less, though I’m going to keep my own mirror of the zig repo until they get some better hardware.
(This should not be read to imply that I think that GitHub’s reliability is acceptable; it clearly isn’t.)
You're running what aims to be a major programming language - have it where people expect and live with your gripes about the platform.
In retail you set up your store in the biggest mall with the most customers walking past - sure you can go set up in some back alley but don't expect customers to come to your store. This remains true even if the mall owns forget to mop the floor.
This feels immature and does not give confidence in the project/language leadership.
The core types who will make use of, contribute to, and/or otherwise use the repo likely don't need it to be on GitHub. Having it "where people expect" is useful for drive-by contributions but Zig doesn't really need that.
Furthermore, why should we as a larger community cede things to GitHub and Microsoft? It doesn't change unless larger parties move the needle.
For an example of another language that avoids being entirely coupled into Github, Go has it's real code hosting and CI interaction on a Gerrit instance, with some sync back and forth to GitHub for a few items.
The CI pain and operational blindness mentioned in the Zig post is entirely real.
Zig needs to behave more mainstream rather than less and technical gripes about the source hosting platform should not matter more than marketing.
It is deeply unfortunate that Git won instead of Mercurial and even more unfortunate that GitHub won. GitHub's code review/PR UI is an abomination. We had better tools 15 years ago and GitHub is still a regression. There are tons of reasons to move off it if you're willing to pay the cost of working with alternatives.
Not that I necessarily disagree with their reasoning, but stick to having strong feelings about your core "mission"? It just feels a bit "unstable". Hard to imagine such stuff coming from Java or Python or whatever other major language
so making tough decisions is now immature this days lol.
> mall owns forget to mop the floor
quite a whitewashing i would say.
This says more about the author than anything else.
This is par for the course for him. He's quite a bit like Linus [1].
He needs to start following his own advice [2].
[1] https://mastodon.social/@andrewrk/112362751644363647
[2] https://andrewkelley.me/post/open-letter-everyone-butted-hea...
If you didn't know what Codeberg's political stance really is and how they treat the inconvenient part of their userbase... I guess now you know.
On the exact page you're on is a link to an issue [0] acknowledging that the CAPTCHA is inaccessible and expressing that they plan to drop it (albeit with no concrete time-frame). I don't at all understand your argument that Codeberg must be slow at replying to emails (the "manual fallback path") because Wikimedia are; these are two completely unrelated entities and I don't see why you would make inferences about one from the other.
I’m hopeful AI tools can improve qol for those who require screen readers and similar tools but have a sinking feeling that it will only transfer even more of the burden for accessible access from operator to user.
Admittedly some of those may be a bit ... unusual. Like the guy who created TempleOS.
So unless you've got any bright ideas, I'm stuck in this Microsoft job till someone comes up with some magical Linux roles, or I start my own Linux-based company and twiddle my thumbs because there's no customers...
Then your beef is with capitalism, not Github/MSFT.
EDIT: I don't understand the downvotes. It's not a value judgement on Github employees, it's about the meaning of the word "loser". Go back to your teenage years. What's a loser? Someone, often through no fault of their own, keep being in a bad situation, having the "short end of the stick". What characteristically makes them losers is that they lack the audacity to snap out of it.
Isn't that an accurate definition of what "loser" generally means?
Why bring people down so hard? That is really solid money and you can provide for a family, retire in your 40s, and it is work that does not destroy your body.
Microsoft is doing more with Github than I can say for most of their products. I won't go to bat for the Xbox or Windows teams, but Github is... fine. Almost offensively usable.
> intermittent outages
Those seem like conflicting statements to me. Last outage was only 13 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45915731.
Also, there have been increasing reports of open source maintainers dealing with LLM generated PRs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274. GitHub seems perfectly positioned to help manage that issue, but in all likelihood will do nothing about it: '"Either you have to embrace the Al, or you get out of your career," Dohmke wrote, citing one of the developers who GitHub interviewed.'
I used to help maintain a popular open source library and I do not envy what open source maintainers are now up against.
Now - what if you are not ok with it? What can you do?
> Almost offensively usable
I think you conflate two points here. One is how useable github is. The other is: control. At which point are you no longer ok with what a private company does? This is not solely about Microsoft alone by the way.
The outages have gone from "almost every Friday" to "several times per week".
The vast majority of of LLM generated code that gets submitted in PRs on public GitHub projects is not that - see the examples they gave.
Reviewing all of that code on its merits alone in order to dismiss it would take an inordinate amount of time and effort that would be much better spent improving the project. The alternative is a blanket LLM generated code ban, which is a lot less effort to enforce because it doesn't involve needing to read piles and piles of nonsense.
LLMs reduce the effort to create a plausible PR down to virtually zero. Requiring a human to write the code is a good indicator that A. the PR has at least some technical merit and B. the human cares enough about the code to bother writing a PR in the first place.
What people don't like about LLM PRs is typically:
a. The person proposing the PR usually lacks adequate context and so it makes communication and feedback, which are essential, difficult if not impossible. They cannot even explain the reasoning behind the changes they are proposing, b. The volume/scale is often unreasonable for human reviewed to contend with. c. The PR may not be in response to an issue but just the realization of some "idea" the author or LLM had, making it even harder to contextualize. d. The cost asymmetry, generally speaking is highly unfavorable to the maintainers.
At the moment, it's just that LLM driven PRs have these qualities so frequently that people use LLM bans as a shorthand since writing out a lengthy policy redescrbiing the basic tenets of participation in software development is tedious and shouldn't be necessary, but here we are, in 2025 when everyone has seemingly decided to abandon those principles in favor of lazyily generating endless reams of pointless code just because they can.
No, I don't think it is. There's more nuance to this debate than either "we're banning all LLM code" or "all of our features are vibe coded".
A blanket ban on unreviewed LLM code is a perfectly reasonable way to mitigate mass-produced slop PRs, but it is not reasonable to ban all code generated by an LLM. Not only is it unenforceable, but it's also counterproductive for people who genuinely get value out of it. As long as the author reviews the code carefully before opening a PR and can be held responsible, there's no problem.
More seriously: I probably wouldn't have called every single current employee of GitHub a "loser", but more because I think truly cool people don't define themselves by where they happen to work at any given time. I'm sure the vast majority of people at GitHub are just tech employees trying to earn a living and don't particularly care whether the Zig guy thinks they're cool or not. What actually matters is that GitHub is a big centralized platform run by Microsoft for their own ends, and it's good to be free of it.
Not only have some of these folks - including the creator - been shitting in Rust threads, but here they're in here shitting on the awesome engineers at Github for no reason at all.
Good god.
edit: this is written by Andrew, the creator. The culture is rotten from the head.
i’m really twisting my finger at the temple here.
Bro you need to go touch grass. There’s a whole world outside of online forums and programming.
HN search isn't great, but you post in Rust threads all the time. Sometimes your only content is Zig code.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44390865
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11827608
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44262183
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26427726
There's much more of this.
Anyway, the clear absurdity of this particular post aside, it's not OK to call other people monkeys. I make no statement on the quality of their engineering. But they're people! I'd hope to see a quiet dignity from the Zig folks here. They've done so much excellent work, and I'm sure it's frustrating to see what software can be and then have it sharply laid against what software often is. But kindness is always the way.
Thanks to everyone involved with Zig for their work and love of software!
That was the entirety of the contribution. It was gloating. And there is a long history of this.
There's open source contributions, and then there's this.
> Anyway, the clear absurdity of this particular post aside, it's not OK to call other people monkeys.
You don't see how the two are related?
In what way is the tone of the linked messages appropriate?
It reminds me of the creeps in school that punched me, shoved me into lockers, tried to assault me.
I almost killed myself as a kid because of bullies. Some people never grow out of that, it seems.
Regardless, it's hard for me to imagine that many readers will find great intellectual interest in a long thread about what a terrible person Andrew is.
More opensource projects should move off GitHub. I moved off it myself.
https://sourcehut.org/blog/2025-11-20-whats-cooking-q4-2025/
What's this about?
And that second link is really grasping at straws lol
Is sr.ht tainted now or still a decent place to host code? I can't quite tell.
Kinda horrible to see that the 4chan bigots use the same strategy to try to discredit drew devault, and implying things of ownership through their own created fake accounts and smearing campaigns. Pretty much all allegations on that page are circumstantial evidence, especially the bot ownership parts that sircmpwn even took down while citing those bigots using it to scrape child porn.
And then the dude of dmpwn posting things on image boards with the tag dmpwn, and forgetting to remove that from screenshots? lol, really?
Having experienced the same kind of doxxing attempts by 4chan bigots, /pol/ and kiwifarms, I think I am qualified to comment on how they operate.
Maybe someone needs to summon the Antichrist a second time to thin out the herd, huh?
Yes issues have been filed but more could be done back channel.
Personally - I think GitHub is a cultural artifact now. Of the entire planet. Hackers and curious minds from Japan to Alaska and everything in-between flock to GitHub.
Also recently wrote about our vision and commitment to indies and communities (and never enterprise!): https://anirudh.fi/future
Microsoft controlling GitHub is an issue, but one can see this issue emerging in different places too; see shopify puting pressure on the ruby ecosystem, ending with various developers who contributed to ruby (in particular via gems and bundler) no longer being accepted there (via RubyCentral's take-over, under shopify's directive and influence onto ruby). Many more examples can be given here. The thing is that money buys influence, ultimately dictating who can contribute and how. Python forcing mandatory 2FA onto all developers is also an example here - the hobbyist who just contributes code, has not really any benefit here, whereas corporations delegate more "security" onto unpaid folks.
I wouldn’t move business critical repos there .
Everyone loses their mind when GitHub goes down once every 2 years . If codeberg provided SLas , they would probably breach them weekly
Except, you know, if you live in Germany. Heaven forbid we get decent ping once in a while :)
Uhh ... More like every two weeks there's some kind of incident.
While I like the idea of a more distributed repository environment, I will miss the project discoverability, social aspects, and centralization that GitHub offers. It'll probably be awhile before I make a switch, but I will eventually.
I push to Github and then an Action mirrors the code to Codeberg automatically.
I'd fully switch over except practically everybody is on Github and nobody is on Codeberg, and I've had more outages with Codeberg than Github over the past year.
It really feels like there could be some good tooling in this area to make working through multiple Forge's easier and not force things to be centralized so much. Hopefully more projects moving out of Github makes it easier and gets more people contributing elsewhere.
I don't think there is all that much friction in distributing git, it's one of the easiest tools to have multiple remotes on. The auxiliary tooling is all open source too, so not much in the way of hosting your own, or for hosted platforms offering the services.
The social aspect of the hosted platforms is unlikely to ever be distributed because that is basically githubs only differentiation.
It's a double hit of latency, and for bonus points, the commit messages won't load at all if your browser is slightly out of date
I don’t hate GitHub or anything, but its UI is way slower now than it use to be.
Good move anyway.
Zig spent years removing dependencies on the system C compiler (zig cc), removing dependencies on libc, and is currently working to remove the dependency on LLVM (the self-hosted backend).
GitHub was just another dependency.
For a project obsessed with reproducibility and toolchain sovereignty, relying on a single proprietary platform (and its changing ToS/AI policies) was a massive architectural liability. They aren't just moving repos; they are eliminating 'Platform Risk' the same way they eliminated 'Linker Risk'.
Zig team ought to probably write about it in that manner.
I don't miss anything from the dark days of managing self-hosted CI servers.
It’s like sourceforge all over again. History rhymes with itself, and enshitification has been added to dictionaries for a good reason.
As a once upon a time avid slashdotter, makes me wonder if some day, HN will go the same route.
Edit: you can register without membership.
[0]: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#what-do-i-nee...
> Thank you to the Forgejo contributors who helped us with our issues switching to the platform, as well as the Codeberg folks who worked with us on the migration
I'd love to see a writeup about these problems/solutions at some point.
That just shows what kind of person they are, and makes me never want to use Zig, even hope for its failure.
Do they actually think the folks who run Github are in charge or making typescript?
If there is one benefit in moving from GitHub it is certainly avoiding receiving AI slop issues on GitHub.
Github was on the decline anyway in the past 5 years, it's time for an alternative and we'll see. Would rather it being Codeberg over something like Sourcehut.
I tend to agree. But I don't see how an exact UI replica of Github is innovative.
I've only glanced at it though, maybe there's more features underneath the hood.
Happy to learn more about what makes it better. Is the CI system more refined than Github Actions? I was definitely never a fan of that system.