In fact the very fact that your source control hosting service can be surpringly[1] unreliable is the best advertisement for git you could imagine.

In fact, if github disappeared from the internet today, all but the largest projects could just set up an ssh-accessible box somewhere and continue work (code review and issue interfaces notwithstanding, of course), probably with 24 hours.

[1] I work in github-cloned repositories almost full time. And sure, I remember a handful of times over the past 4-5 years where it's been down when I wanted to push something. I had no idea it was 50x/year! And that's because "working in a github-cloned repository" doesn't, in fact, require much contact with github itself.

> I think the bigger picture here is the migration to Git

Is it tho? Why wouldn't they just install git on their server? Now there is not many mainstream successful social hosting for svn. They acknowledge the choice of github is to attract devs. So it's as much about the software as about the type of hosting and web presence.

> Why wouldn't they just install git on their server?

That's easy, and it's about 5% of the functionality which GitHub provides. Even if you're working entirely in private, the tools you'd have to build yourself to do code review, CI/CD, package management, security updates, etc. are a significant amount of work and that's before you get to things like Codespaces.

I doubt webkit would do anything beyond code review on github.

Code review itself is a big deal in terms of the complexity of the UI for managing reviews but I’d also be surprised if they didn’t use anything else. Linting and other static analysis checks, reporting CI results, etc. are quite powerful and less work than setting the equivalent infrastructure up yourself.

Ah yes, they will 100% have a working review process with some other tools, no need to migrate to github's which isn't really flexible anyway.

There are a handful of deep Git features like rebase or bisect which GitHub doesn’t expose but those aren’t things most people use frequently. Git has no equivalent for the things people do use all of the time: the issue tracking system, code review with all sorts of rules and approvals, the CI/CD system, package management for manage languages, not to mention newer features like Codespaces.

That’s a ton of features which cause people to use services like GitHub or GitLab, and it’s not like you’re giving up any of the CLI functionality to do so. My point wasn’t that these services are perfect but rather that there’s way more to it than setting up a Linux box you can push to.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying other than the relative scale of what each provides. Like I said, I like GitHub. I just think it adds less to git than git adds to it. And most of their features are great, but I’d sure rather a nice distributed interface to bisect than an IDE in browser or issue forums (which are useful too!).

I believe interactive rebases are my most frequently used git command :)

I commit more frequently, yes, but I will note that it works great in Codespaces if you don't want to run it locally.