There appears to be a need for some a different class of repository for larger open source software.

Similar to the way twitter provides verified accounts maybe GitHub should consider a tagging these popular repositories to allow for more advanced control over the collaboration project.

When I first read the letter I was a little bit disappointed, one thing I've enjoyed (to an limited extent) is the low barrier of entry to pull requests. The spring boot team especially are extremely patient and understanding when it comes to pull requests.

Hopefully there's enough community will in this to encourage GitHub to make the change, if it does really come down it not being worth the money it would be a disappointing sign.

Can you clarify? I've heard similar negative feelings from devs. What's wrong with lombok?

I think that was his point?

UI looks very slick, is it based off a framework?

Thanks :) Its all AngularJS + Bootstrap, really is amazing what you can build with those two frameworks. Ace editor is also a favourite of ours.

Phabricator isn't code hosting, it's repository viewing. The code is still hosted in whatever existing SCM tool is being used. It does have a lot of features that overlap with github which is why it is a bit confusing.

Phabricator does have code hosting, and the Phabricator master repository is self-hosted on Phabricator and mirrored to GitHub.

We link to GitHub because they have more infrastructure than we do for handling heavy read loads.

How is the code hosting done in the backend, do you reuse git or is there something bespoke in action back there?

Underlying writes go to Git, Mercurial and SVN.

Generally speaking, we proxy requests and pass them through to the VCS after performing authentication and broad permission checks. Requests are rewritten slightly to remap user-facing display paths to actual paths on disk. Some additional features act through commit hooks.