<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">I really don’t want to act like a tech-pundit here, but I think there’s an important point worth considering which is perhaps too business-y to be noticed in the noise around the acquisition. And this is not about microsoft having better or worse priorities, etc. We can recognize the good work MS has produced and funded in the past years, and their changed relationship to free software licenses, etc. and also recognize that there are going to be business decisions at work that are almost independent of who acquired github.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">Github, like most tech startups, was operating at a loss for years. Honestly, despite their paid services, the business model was to give a bunch of stuff away for free or below cost and make it really nice, to generate a huge user-base. Having established a dominant share of users, you then exit by selling off the company, and the users, who are now somewhat locked-into the ecosystem. That’s what happened. The issue is not about values or anything related. It is simply in the nature of the business model, and in fact is the whole reason github managed to be so well capitalized despite operating at a loss to begin with. (In fact, the paid services were not actually about making money — they were proofs of concept to illustrate how one could leverage the position of github to make money. The model wasn’t to make money — it was to show how one could make money after acquiring github.)</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">However, now that github is acquired — and it doesn’t matter particularly that it was microsoft rather than ibm or oracle or SAP — there’s no incentive to give stuff away below-cost just to foster growth in users. And there’s no incentive to cater to projects that aren’t of the sort that will pay significant sums for premium services. That’s not about corporate values or priorities, per se. That’s just business. As is the fate of all such acquisitions, github will have to be turned around from being in the red, but with many users, to being in the black. Part of that may be direct, and part may be in terms of focusing on integration with other microsoft products so as to steer github users into the broader ecosystem of paid microsoft tooling. (E.g., I expect that a great deal of development effort will be devoted to increased integration with visualstudio team services). That means changes will _have_ to occur. I don’t know at what pace, and I don’t know how drastic, but that’s just the financial realities. Maybe, at the end of the day, github will end up being more suitable, not less, for ghc and related dev, even if that means a certain degree of payment for premium services. But maybe not. What is certainly the case is that there will be some degree of growing pains, and if ghc is seeking something stable that reduces overhead, it does not seem to make sense to me to make a switch precisely at a point where things are most situated to have to suffer through these pains.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">Cheers,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">Gershom</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto"><br></div> <br> <div id="bloop_sign_1528267580523761152" class="bloop_sign"></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On June 6, 2018 at 2:12:29 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty (<a href="mailto:manuel.chakravarty@tweag.io">manuel.chakravarty@tweag.io</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space" class=""><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Am 06.06.2018 um 06:51 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones
<<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com" class="">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>>:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">I have no inside knowledge, but I suspect that
Microsoft's acquisition of Github means<br class="">
- that GitHub will be largely undisturbed culturally<br class="">
- that GitHub will have more oomph behind it, so it'll become
yet<br class="">
more the de-facto choice than it already is<br class=""></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class=""></div>
I agree, Simon. Microsoft 2018 seems to have different priorities
from what it used to have — that is clear just from looking at the
sheer scale of open-source contributions.
<div class=""><br class=""></div>
<div class="">I think, the main obstacle here is perception.
Especially among the Linux community, there are many people who
historically distrust Microsoft. We have seen this discussion on
the GHC list before, where some individuals refuse to even consider
GitHub just because not every last bit of their software is open
source. Alas, I predict that these people will feel validate by the
acquisition.</div>
<div class=""><br class=""></div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">| That is correct. Phacility is moving to an
explicitly pay-to-play model;<br class="">
| CircleCI and Appveyor both only support GitHub,<br class="">
<br class="">
I know nothing of the nitty-gritty reality, but from what you say
about Phab, it sounds to me as if the wind is blowing us toward
GitHub even if it doesn’t do everything we might want.<br class=""></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class=""></div>
This is my impression, too. Now, I see no problem in paying for a
service when it is useful — as in we get better support for code
reviews than what GitHub provides for free. However, if we are
going to pay-to-play anyway, then I would strongly suggest to
consider services like <a href="https://reviewable.io" class="">https://reviewable.io</a>, which integrate well with GitHub, and
hence with CircleCI and Appveyor, with no extra work on our
side.</div>
<div><br class=""></div>
<div>In fact, I just looked at <<a href="https://reviewable.io" class="">https://reviewable.io</a><a href="https://reviewable.io's" class="">>’s</a> pricing and for open source projects it
seems to be free.</div>
<div><br class=""></div>
<div>Ben & SimonM, could you please have a closer look at
whether <a href="https://reviewable.io" class="">https://reviewable.io</a> addresses the issues that you
have got with GitHub’s code reviews? (I notice that one point Ben
has made, namely how comments at specific lines are handled by
GitHub, is something that <a href="https://reviewable.io" class="">https://reviewable.io</a> explicitly claims they do
much better.)</div>
<div><br class=""></div>
<div>Signing up for the free option is trivial with your GitHub
account and you can link the GHC org from there. We can
try <a href="https://reviewable.io" class="">https://reviewable.io</a> on individual PRs without
enabling it for the entire repo to get a feel for it.</div>
<div><br class=""></div>
<div>I’d like to know if there is any strong reason for not
replacing Phacility by Reviewable.</div>
<div><br class=""></div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Manuel<br class="">
<div><br class=""></div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Simon<br class="">
<br class="">
| -----Original Message-----<br class="">
| From: Ghc-devops-group <<a href="mailto:ghc-devops-group-bounces@haskell.org" class="">ghc-devops-group-bounces@haskell.org</a>> On Behalf<br class="">
| Of Ben Gamari<br class="">
| Sent: 05 June 2018 17:30<br class="">
| To: Manuel M T Chakravarty <<a href="mailto:manuel.chakravarty@tweag.io" class="">manuel.chakravarty@tweag.io</a>><br class="">
| Cc: <a href="mailto:ghc-devops-group@haskell.org" class="">ghc-devops-group@haskell.org</a><br class="">
| Subject: Re: [GHC DevOps Group] State of CI<br class="">
|<br class="">
| Manuel M T Chakravarty <<a href="mailto:manuel.chakravarty@tweag.io" class="">manuel.chakravarty@tweag.io</a>> writes:<br class="">
|<br class="">
| > Hi Ben,<br class="">
| ><br class="">
| Hi Manuel,<br class="">
|<br class="">
| > I just wanted to touch base regarding the state of the GHC
CI effort.<br class="">
| ><br class="">
| > As far as I am aware, we have CI running on both CircleCI
and Appveyor<br class="">
| > (with Google generously donating the build machines). Is
that right?<br class="">
| ><br class="">
| That is right. Alp and I have been steadily chipping away at
the<br class="">
| remaining build issues but otherwise things seem to be working
well.<br class="">
|<br class="">
| > Do these builds also generate complete build artefacts by
now? (We<br class="">
| > wanted to eventually generate everything including
documentation<br class="">
| > automatically.)<br class="">
| ><br class="">
|<br class="">
|<br class="">
| > If I am not mistaken, we still can’t run CircleCI on Phab
Diffs.<br class="">
| > Moreover, there was some noise that Phabricator might be
changing<br class="">
| > their business model, which might make it less attractive
for GHC (but<br class="">
| > I am not sure about the details). Is that correct?<br class="">
| ><br class="">
| That is correct. Phacility is moving to an explicitly pay-to-play
model;<br class="">
| the source is available, but they aren't accepting patches and
opening<br class="">
| tickets requires a support contract. This isn't the end of the
world for<br class="">
| us, but it certainly makes Phabricator less attractive in the
long-run.<br class="">
| However, given the recent GitHub news, I'm not sure this is a
terribly<br class="">
| attractive option either.<br class="">
|<br class="">
| All of this certainly complicates the CI story. On one hand, I've
been<br class="">
| a tad reluctant to spend too much time hacking
Phabricator/CircleCI<br class="">
| integration together given the Phabricator situation. On the
other hand,<br class="">
| CircleCI and Appveyor both only support GitHub, so a move to,
for<br class="">
| instance, GitLab doesn't really unblock us.<br class="">
|<br class="">
| For the time being I would say we should probably continue
pushing ahead<br class="">
| with Phabricator. It likely won't be too hard to get something
working<br class="">
| and it will finally allow us to begin moving away from
Harbormaster.<br class="">
|<br class="">
| Cheers,<br class="">
|<br class="">
| - Ben<br class=""></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br>Ghc-devops-group mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ghc-devops-group@haskell.org">Ghc-devops-group@haskell.org</a><br><a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devops-group">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devops-group</a><br></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>