←back to thread

848 points thefilmore | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.224s | source
Show context
floriangosse ◴[] No.43970232[source]
I think it's actually an understandable strategical move from Mozilla. They might loose some income from Google and probably have to cut the staff. But to keep the development of Firefox running they want to involve more people from the community and GitHub is the tool that brings most visibility on the market right now and is known by many developers. So the hurdle getting involved is much lower.

I think you can dislike the general move to a service like GitHub instead of GitLab (or something else). But I think we all benefit from the fact that Firefox's development continues and that we have a competing engine on the market.

replies(6): >>43970680 #>>43971628 #>>43971800 #>>43972174 #>>43972919 #>>43983811 #
fhd2 ◴[] No.43970680[source]
In my experience, most contributors who are deterred from contributing because they can't use GitHub aren't particularly valuable contributors. I'm sure there's exceptions, but I haven't seen any for non-trivial open source projects I've been involved in. I might even argue that it could be good to have a slightly higher bar to deter low quality one time contributors.
replies(11): >>43970739 #>>43970819 #>>43970821 #>>43970824 #>>43970955 #>>43971022 #>>43971133 #>>43971148 #>>43971264 #>>43971283 #>>43971354 #
rendaw ◴[] No.43970821[source]
How can you judge the quality of people who don't contribute? They don't contribute, so what's there to judge?
replies(1): >>43971086 #
1. fhd2 ◴[] No.43971086[source]
Not possible, but I have a comparison between projects on GitHub and projects not on GitHub (and generally more ceremony).

A lot more contributions on GH, but the majority of them ignored guidelines and/or had low code quality and attention to detail. Just my anecdotal experience of course.