> ICE, Actions, and Microsoft, not a single complaint about git itself
Codeberg is also a Git-based project host. It doesn't even support other repo types. Why would you be expecting the latter?
If a project announcement or article headline says someone/something is quitting or leaving GitHub, it makes a lot of sense to assume that their issue is with GitHub (and in this case, it would be an assumption they'd be right about).
I was pointing out how ironic it was for them to move from git SaaS to git SaaS while having no issues with git on the git SaaS they're moving away from. Make sense?
Only if they use it purely as a git SaaS which they don't, it's also an issue tracker and discussion forum. Even PRs aren't strictly a git concept. Given they use all those things and given they're against having AI features built into them, it does not seem ironic to me at all.
You're conflating GitHub the platform with GitHub the bundle of services. CI is optional, swappable, not unique to GitHub. Sponsorship infrastructure and discoverability are not. The complaints target the optional layer. The migration sacrifices the sticky layer. That's backwards, and ironic, with the intention of being performative. It's almost like selling your car because a tire lost some air, lol.
Codeberg is also a Git-based project host. It doesn't even support other repo types. Why would you be expecting the latter?
If a project announcement or article headline says someone/something is quitting or leaving GitHub, it makes a lot of sense to assume that their issue is with GitHub (and in this case, it would be an assumption they'd be right about).