[nl]

But that's ok! It's easy to switch to a new code host. It's hard to change all the links on the internet if your link rots.

Putting a service like code.google into read-only mode is pretty much the ideal outcome for a discontinued service.

Google should be praised for how they behaved here.

[bronson]

Coding is a solitary activity? Switching everyone to a new environment is hard.

Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise.

[shiroiushi]

>Switching everyone to a new environment is hard.

Sure, but this is the danger you get when you rely on an outside vendor's service for anything. If you don't want to deal with this danger, then you should never, ever use an external vendor's service for anything; you should only use your own self-hosted solutions.

Of course, Google does have a worse track record than some when it comes to their services being EOLed if they aren't search, Maps, etc., but still, this can happen with anything: it can be shut down, or bought out by a competitor, etc.

>Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise.

I don't think so in this case. I'd say Google has done a poor job of sunsetting other projects of theirs, but if this one actually keeps all the links alive albeit in read-only mode, that's really a lot better than most other EOLed or shut-down (like due to bankruptcy) services (from Google or anyone else), where it just disappears one day.

[Dylan16807]

> Of course, Google does have a worse track record

Yes, that's the point of the above comments. The repeated lesson is that there's always a risk of shutdown, but don't trust google in particular to keep services running.