Microsoft "suddenly" does not seem to want you to run your own CI, which is a key part of running your own SCM. And this decision miraculously happens the moment a lot of big orgs are looking at self-hosting a cost effective (because open source) near 1:1 alternative to GitHub (=Forgejo).

So they make CI a bit cheaper but a future migration to Forgejo harder.

In fact they could easily pull off some typical sleazy Microsoft bullshit and eventually make it a shit ton harder to migrate out of GitHub once you migrated back in.

The idea is that they let you stay locked in for free. They dissuade people from making their CI pipeline forge-agnostic by charging you if you if you take steps to not be dependent on them. This means they can keep charging in other areas, and keep people in GitHub so that it stays dominant. Dominance is something that can be used to keep people in the Microsoft ecosystem, keep GitHub as the place where code goes so they have training data for LLMs, and dominance can simply be cashed in down the line.

I don’t know if that’s actually why they’re doing this, but it sounds plausible.

If you make running your own runners as expensive as running on Github's runners on top of the cost of actually hosting the runners, then if you are currently on Github and not able to migrate off immediately, the price conscious decision is to migrate runners into Github. But then, its even harder if you ever decide to migrate your whole operation out.

Now, if you are already looking at migrating, its also potentially a kick in the butt to do it now. But if you aren’t, the path of least resistance—or at least, the path of least present recurring cost—is a path to a greater degree of lock-in.

Where does GitHub even make most of their money? Their compliance posture makes them a non-starter for any regulated industries (which is atypical for a Microsoft property, generally MS is the market leader for compliance in all of their products).

Representatives from the Dutch government recently had a chat with representatives from Forgejo because they are quite interested in migrating their SCM infrastructure from Github to Forgejo.

And trust me, they are running a lot of public and private repositories.

And there are many more orgs and govs throughout Europe doing similar things because there's a (growing) zeitgeist here that the Trump administration nor any American SaaS company can be trusted. This started, by the way, after Microsoft suspended the ICJ from using Microsoft 365 on orders from the White House.

> Having your commits refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA

just rewrite the short links in your front-end to point to the migrated issues/PRs. write a redirect rule for each migrated issue/PR, easy

hard-coded links in commit messages are annoying, you can redirect in the front-end too but locally you'd have to smudge/clean them on local checkout/commit

Democratic organization is a strike?

Where do you live that that seems like a bad idea?

Inclusivity and democratic governance of a project is a strike to you? Seems like perhaps your hat is showing...

Inclusive is strike 1?

What color are you?

I'm sure I can find a company that supports ethnostates if you need that for your next project.