[bayindirh]

I guess it's the CI/CD infrastructure. Pipeline and time requirement grows exponentially as the code supports more operating systems and configurations.

I used a GitLab + GitLab Runner (docker) pipeline for my Ph.D. project which did some verification after every push (since the code was scientific), and even that took 10 minutes to complete even if it was pretty basic. Debian's some packages need more than three hours in their own CI/CD pipeline.

Something like Mozilla Firefox, which is tested against regressions, performance, etc. (see https://www.arewefastyet.com) needs serious infrastructure and compute time to build in n different configurations (stable / testing / nightly + all the operating systems it supports) and then test at that scale. This needs essentially a server farm, to complete in reasonable time.

An infrastructure of that size needs at least two competent people to keep it connected to all relevant cogs and running at full performance, too.

So yes, it's a significant effort.

[jgraham]

This is all true, but as the sibling says, not really related to the change discussed here.

Firefox does indeed have a large CI system and ends up running thousands of jobs on each push to main (formerly mozilla-central), covering builds, linting, multiple testsuites, performance testing, etc. all across multiple platforms and configurations. In addition there are "try" pushes for work in progress patches, and various other kinds of non-CI tasks (e.g. fuzzing). That is all run on our taskcluster system and I don't believe there are any plans to change that.

[arp242]

> I guess it's the CI/CD infrastructure

Your guess is wrong as Firefox doesn't use GitHub for any of that, and AFAIK there are no plans to either.

The blog post linked in the top comment goes in to this in some detail, but in brief: git log, clone, diff, showing files, blame, etc. is CPU expensive. You can see this locally on large repo if you try something like "git log path/to/dir".

Add to this all the standard requirements of running any server that needs to be 1) fast, and 2) highly available.

And why bother when there's a free service available for you?

[bayindirh]

It was a guess and I never claimed it was 100% correct, and I'm happy to stand corrected. No hard feelings there.

[tempaccount420]

"I guess..." != "I'm guessing..."

[bayindirh]

That's new to me. Can you expand on that a little?

[notpushkin]

I think the CI/CD infra stays intact here though? (and even then, I imagine GitHub Actions bill would be enormous for a project like Firefox)

[saghm]

If the CI/CD is the most intensive part, it seems reasonable to move all of the other parts to a free provider to focus on the part that would be harder and more expensive to move. Even if they don't ever move any of the CI/CD over, I feel like I can understand the rationale for reducing the scope to just that rather than the source hosting. I've worked on plenty of projects with way less traffic than Firefox over the years that used GitHub for source hosting but alternate CI/CD; GitHub didn't even have built in CI for a while, so that was the only way to use it.

Given the frequency I see comments on this site about Mozilla trying to do far too much rather than just focusing their efforts on core stuff like Firefox, I'm honestly a bit surprised that there aren't more people agreeing with this decision. Even with the other issues I have with Mozilla lately (like the whole debacle over the privacy policy changes and the extremely bizarre follow-up about what the definition of "selling user data" is), I don't see it as hypocritical to use GitHub while maintaining a stance that open solutions are better than closed ones because I think trying to make an open browser in the current era is a large and complicated goal for it to be worth it to set a high bar for taking on additional fights. Insisting on spending effort on maintaining their own version control servers feels like a effort that they don't need to be taking on right now, and I'd much rather than Mozilla pick their battles carefully like this more often than less. Trying to fight for more open source hosting at this point is a large enough battle that maybe it would make more sense for a separate organization focused on that to be leading the front in that regard; providing an alternative to Chrome is a big enough struggle that it's not crazy for them to decide that GitHub's dominance has to be someone else's problem.

[notpushkin]

Yeah, I agree that everything that helps reduce maintenance overhead is good for Mozilla (although I believe there’s more low-hanging fruits that could be addressed before that).

I would love to see Mozilla moving to Codeberg.org (though I’d ask if they’re okay with it first) or something like that. Using GitHub is okay-ish? Personally, I frown upon it, but again I agree – it’s not the most important issue right now.

[bayindirh]

I think it can be done half/half. Do some, well-defined builds at GitHub and pull in for testing. Another comment tells that some users needed 10+ minutes to get a lock to pass their tests through CI, so maybe some sanity tests can be offloaded to GitHub actions.

I'm not claiming that my comment was 100% accurate, but they plan to move some of the CI to GitHub, at least.

[TheDong]

> but they plan to move some of the CI to GitHub, at least

Really? I've seen no indication of that anywhere, and I'd be amazed if they did.

They're not using github PRs, and github actions really fights against other development workflows... not to mention they already have invested a lot in TaskCluster, and specialized it to their needs.

Where are you getting that from?

[bayindirh]

It was an, apparently very wrong, educated guess. Nothing more.