Github dislikes email “aliases” so much that they will shadow ban your otherwise normal activities for months, and once flagged, support will request not only a “valid” email domain but also that you remove the “alias” email from the account completely.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    191·
    10 months ago

    GitHub is owned by Microsoft and Microsoft also hates email aliases. May I recommend Port87. Microsoft and GitHub both accept the tagged addresses you use with Port87.

  • hydrogen@lemmy.ml
    202·
    10 months ago

    I had the same issue with my Anonaddy alias, I just made an alias using my domain name and works fine now. It’s unfortunate that so many project are on shithub.

      • toastal@lemmy.ml
        12·
        10 months ago

        GitHub was proprietary, venture-capital, Ruby sludge before Microsoft. They’d either way aim to be bought or be the next Microsoft.

    • mrshy@lemmy.mlOP
      2·
      10 months ago

      I gave them an generic “alias” through a more mainstream service than silomails, we’ll see if that pacifies them.

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      155·
      10 months ago

      Github is unfortunately the premier platform for collaborating with others to build FOSS. Until alternative forges support federation, any other forge is usually a dead end.

          • toastal@lemmy.ml
            32·
            10 months ago

            Is this why Freedesktop, GNOME, KDE, Haskell, & others self-host their GitLab community editions? These must not be the real FOSS projects.

            • coolkicks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              51·
              10 months ago

              Sure, self-hosting is a great option for very large projects, but a random python library to help with an analytics workflow isn’t going to self-host. Those projects, along with 27,999,990 others have chosen GitHub, often times explicitly to reduce the barrier to contribution.

              Also, all of those examples are built on thousands of other FOSS projects, 99% of which aren’t self-hosting. This is the same as arguing only Amazon is a bookseller and ignoring the thousands of independent book publishers creating the books Amazon is selling.

              • toastal@lemmy.ml
                1·
                10 months ago

                This isn’t to say every project should self-host, but that they could self-host. And if you don’t want to self-host, you can join groups like Notabug, or a server hosted by a foundation like Codeberg, or the privately-held SourceHut, or even the open-core GitLab with its free tier (tho publicly-traded, most of the source is open & one can run the community edition if they wish). To assume if not self-hosted GitLab CE, then one must use a closed-source, US-based, publicly-traded, megacorporate, social media + code forge platform that’s trying to monopolize the developer tooling space is a false dichotomy.

      • toastal@lemmy.ml
        23·
        10 months ago

        The pull request model Microsoft GitHub force on users ends up being a colossal waste of everyone’s time & it’s the only model offered. It’s also a social media platform which encourages star hacking, READMEs that are actually RENDERMEs, focusing too much on making one’s graph green, etc. that are bad for project quality & mental health IMO. This doesn’t sound like a “premier” platform but the result of lock-in & network effect. The way to break is to go host elsewhere… & since Git is a distributed version control system, this should be encouraged.