repositories

GitHub censoring content means they are not a neutral platform for hosting public repositories and they are showing their potential for becoming the next Sourceforge.

Private repositories don't need the social aspects of github at all, as they're private and the group of people using the repo is limited and known up front.

You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories.

In particular, this leaves all repositories open to media-induced attention and controversy, followed by a takedown.

Punch cards, followers, stars on the repositories of the user, important contributions - all are available at a bird's eye view.

Many bigger companies will have multiple Yum/Apt/Maven/Git repositories, and with Docker, it doesn't matter.

It took me about 1 minute find other repositories using derogatory descriptions of people.

GitHub making value judgments on the political correctness of speech in the repositories they host makes me extremely hesitant to continue to use them.

The free-form nature of spreadsheets, in my experience, almost always makes for human readable repositories of data that are nearlyuseless from an automated processing perspective.

Historically my svn is my datastore and I never bothered to set up multiple repositories.

Enterprise Customers cannot (and will not) attempt to transition from hosting hundreds (in some cases, thousands) of private repositories on gitHub in favor of another service.

Github might very well be financially impacted if repositories that are now separate for technical reasons will be merged to become subtrees of one larger repository.

So, one potential idea is to incentivise developers to "audit" smart contracts in repositories.

If Microsoft did want to compete in that "social coding" space and not just enterprise ALM, purchasing SourceForge to "seed" VSO with a bunch of (semi-)active repositories wouldn't be out of the question, would it?