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