[tiffanyh]

I really like @mitchellh perspective on this topic of moving off GitHub.

---

> If you're a code forge competing with GitHub and you look anything like GitHub then you've already lost. GitHub was the best solution for 2010. [0]

> Using GitHub as an example but all forges are similar so not singling them out here This page is mostly useless. [1]

> The default source view ... should be something like this: https://haskellforall.com/2026/02/browse-code-by-meaning [2]

[0] https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2023502586440282256#m

[1] https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2023499685764456455#m

[2] https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2023497187288907916#m

[Starlevel004]

Person who pays for AI: We should make everything revolve around the thing I pay for

[nine_k]

The amount of inference required for semantic grouping is small enough to run locally. It can even be zero if semantic tagging is done manually by authors, reviewers, and just readers.

[resonious]

The stuff he says in [1] completely does not match my usage. I absolutely do use fork and star. I use release. I use the homepage link, and read the short description.

I'm also quite used to the GitHub layout and so have a very easy time using Codeberg and such.

I am definitely willing to believe that there are better ways to do this stuff, but it'll be hard to attract detractors if it causes friction, and unfamiliarity causes friction.

[rtpg]

I really don't get this... like you're a code checkout away from just asking claude locally. I get that it is a bit more extra friction but "you should have an agent prompt on your forge's page" is a _huge_ costly ask!

I say this as someone who does browse the web view for repos a lot, so I get the niceness of browsing online... but even then sometimes I'm just checking out a repo cuz ripgrep locally works better.

[hparadiz]

This looks like a confusing mess to me.

[blibble]

for [1] he's right for his specific use case

when he's working on his own project, obviously he never uses the about section or releases

but if you're exploring projects, you do

(though I agree for the tree view is bad for everyone)

[mbreese]

I also check for the License of a project when I'm looking at a project for the first time. I usually only look at that information once, but it should be easily viewed.

I also look for releases if it's a program I want to install... much easier to download a processed artifact than pull the project and build it myself.

But, I think I'm coming around to the idea that we might need to rethink what the point of the repository is for outside users. There's a big difference in the needs of internal and external users, and perhaps it's time for some new ideas.

(I mean, it's been 18 years since Github was founded, we're due for a shakeup)

[crabmusket]

Hrm. Mitchell has been very level-headed about AI tools, but this seems like a rare overstep into hype territory.

"This new thing that hasn't been shipped, tested, proven, in a public capacity on real projects should be the default experience going forwards" is a bit much.

I for one wouldn't prefer a pre-chewed machine analysis. That sounds like an interesting feature to explore, but why does it need to be forced into the spotlight?

[bastardoperator]

Crazy... https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty

[Rapzid]

Oh FFS. Twitter really brings out the worst in people. Prefer the more deeply insightful and measured blog posting persona.

[pojntfx]

Aren't they literally moving off GitHub _because_ of LLMs and the enshittification optimising for them causes? This line of thinking and these features seem to push people _off_ your platform, not onto it.