Project appears to be dead?

[romanholidaypancakes]

The author has not been online for a year, any PR needs his approval.
vscode-git-graph/blob/develop/LICENSE Also restricts others from doing maintenance

[vkv]

@mhutchie could the license be less restrictive, e.g. to allow forks?

There no nice alternatives AFAIK for private repo use:

• Git Lens requires plus subscription for the graph feature
• Git History offers really limited context actions via the graph

[bvandevliet]

I'm also worried the project is dead, I know there are some good PR's and worthy active issues to improve this extension far more. It would be a waste if those are not picked up. Or if someone has the time, ambition and permission to publish and maintain an official fork (@vkv perhaps? ;)), that would also be great. I would say this extension is too good to let go!

@mhutchie I hope you're well and healthy! Please give us a clue about your future plans for Git Graph so we could act on that if that is the way forward :)

[Sam-Lin-MillersLab]

If the author hasn't been online for a year, I am more worried about his wellbeing at this point.

[Chrismettal]

I have been trying to contact him about this as well. Would love to see additional people with write access, or a license that allows forking, whatever @mhutchie's preference would be.

[sbhutch]

Please post an update if you manage to establish contact @Chrismettal

[iamfraggle]

If the author hasn't been online for a year, I am more worried about his wellbeing at this point.

For what it's worth, his LinkedIn was updated in April.

[zanminkian]

An alternative I found: https://github.com/raymon-sun/vscode-git-history. Clean and easy to use, but it seems that cannot show diffs between different commits.

[Chrismettal]

After not being able to establish contact in any way I have asked Github support for a transfer of ownership, or the addition of another collaborator with push access.
I am sure we can find someone to carry the torch if Github is able to transfer.

[Sam-Lin-MillersLab]

I don't think that is possible. The best thing we can do is forking this.

[ugudango]

Wouldn't forking be a violation of the license? I'm assuming they wouldn't be pursuing legal action, seeing that they abandoned this. There will be problems with publishing the extension to the store, though.

Putting out releases would still be considered "publishing derivative works", so what's left is to fork and ask the users of the updated extension to compile the extension themselves.

[Sam-Lin-MillersLab]

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to use,
copy, modify, merge, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Permission is NOT GRANTED to publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
derivative works of the Software.

Not sure if fork is distributing

[Turiok]

Hi everyone,

His last message on his discord came from 02/09/2022. He is very occupied right now but think to improve the extension. And think to add maintainers if motivated one.
So do not steal (even for the good cause) and let him make a pause if he wants one.
At least, he seems healthy. And it's the best news :)

[bvandevliet]

That's very good news! And of course he can take a break, but we weren't informed that was the case until now. And I'm glad to hear he is (most probably) in good health! :)

Maybe a bit off topic, but I want to mention a feature request that I pulled some time ago (#438), because I think the extension vscode-git-history (as mentioned in this comment above) solved this quite nicely. Namely, it has the git graph in the lower area where the terminal also lives and shows the file diffs in the main area. This way we can browse file diffs more easily since we don't need to switch between the file diff tab and the git graph tab anymore. I'd suggest we could have the best of these both extensions combined! :)

[gtnIIS]

I also appreciate the response, as mentioned by @Turiok and am happy, that the project apparently is not dead. Still, I guess it'd be a great advantage for everyone to have a couple of maintainers added so all the PRs and issues do not have to be on standby.

@mhutchie please let us know how we can revive this great project wrt to your being otherwise occupied at the moment.

[ghost]

great news @Turiok thanks for letting us know.

[MurtadhaInit]

It's been 5 months now. The last commit was on September 2021.
Should we assume the project is not going to be maintained anymore?

[ghost]

no @MurtadhaInit look above at the reply from @Turiok

[gtnIIS]

@Caasi-dev I think everybody saw the post of @Turiok but still I don't really see @mhutchie coming back anytime soon. So to actually just answer @MurtadhaInit s question: yes, currently the project is not maintained and - as you can see - nobody knows if or when the owner plans to come back or assign somebody else to maintain it.

[jankap]

Would there be volunteers to maintain the project? We could ask @mhutchie directly since he seems to be active on other platforms.

[tontus]

Would there be volunteers to maintain the project? We could ask @mhutchie directly since he seems to be active on other platforms.

I'm happy to volunteer.

[jankap]

So, since we would have maintainer with @tontus , is somebody who had contact to @mhutchie able to make him aware?

[anthonypillot]

By the way, do you have any news about the project's recovery? @jankap @tontus

[tontus]

Not yet, Waiting for some direction to start. @anthonypillot

[Turiok]

Sadly any answer from @mhutchie on its Discord.
I seen only once time connected on it. But he went offline as soon as I wrote on the channel.
A fork will be nice but against the license I think.

[MarkJeronimus]

Yes unfortunately, it's perfectly fine to include MIT licensed components in a project, and distribute it as non-open-source. Yes that's right, this project is not open source according to the definition, since the definition demands derived works.

Someone could, once communication is re-established, ask him to reconsider the open-source-ness. Maybe he's just not even aware his project is not open source?

[maxisam]

tbh the right thing for @mhutchie to do at this point, since clearly he has no intention of reviving this project, (or even addressing the community) would probably be to just archive the project, so folks can stop waiting and wondering, and move on.

@mhutchie's last interaction was in 2021. Have you ever stopped to think that he is not actually ignoring us on purpose and that, due to the world incidents at the time, he may not even be alive? Just conjecturing...

nay, he is alive and doing well. I think this project just took too much time of him. If anyone ever read the PRs in this repo, you can see how much effort he put in this project. It is amazing.

I think at certain point he think he should walk away but he doesn't want others ruin his baby. I totally understand and respect his wish. Good code is like art and this project is a piece of art.

I have nothing but appreciate to him and leave a door for people like me can at least create my own build to use it the way I want.

[pohlt]

@mhutchie's last interaction was in 2021. Have you ever stopped to think that he is not actually ignoring us on purpose and that, due to the world incidents at the time, he may not even be alive? Just conjecturing...

Michael's last update on LinkedIn was in April 2024 so I guess (and hope for him) he is doing just fine.

[mindplay-dk]

I was wondering when the license was changed from MIT, and I found the commit here:

7e4ccb3

If you browse the code at the parent commit 4af8583, all of that code you see here was MIT licensed:

https://github.com/mhutchie/vscode-git-graph/tree/4af8583a42082b2c230d2c0187d4eaff4b69c665

This version is 363 commits behind the final release, so obviously there would be a lot of slack to pick up, but...

If someone wanted to fork this project, you can fork it from this commit, and still respect the author's wishes. 🙂

[MarkJeronimus]

I think the authors *wishes* were to not have the MIT license, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it. They just can't change it retroactively. What's currently happening is, when you fork from that point, the author doesn't have any legal foothold to stop you from doing so. I don't know if this is true, it's just something to think about.

[maxisam]

@mindplay-dk this is not the first time people mentioning that idea. But I think the community doesn't feel this is a right way.

[mindplay-dk]

I think the authors wishes were to not have the MIT license, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it.

The author's wish for that version of the software was for it to be MIT licensed - for later versions, he had different wishes.

I've changed the license for some of my own software in the past. This is how it works with open source. If you released it under an open source license, that version of the software is forever under an open source license.

It says so explicitly in the license text you included:

"without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so"

If you release a different version under a different license, this does not affect what you released in the past.

I mean, can you imagine, if popular open source projects suddenly decided to retroactively change their license, expecting to shut down existing forks or other derivative projects? Of course that is neither legal nor enforceable in practice. Releasing something "without limitation" means just that, without limitations. Using that version of the software under the terms it was released is completely legal and fair.

But I think the community doesn't feel this is a right way.

Has the author said they wouldn't like that? Why would they care? The whole project is abandonware as it is. 🤷‍♂️

I see no legal or moral reason why the community shouldn't take what was granted at the time and use it as it was licensed.

The only reason not to do that is it's a whole lot of work and a setback for the project - but there is no indication the project is ever going to receive another update, so I mean, you could consider the whole thing dead and buried, or, if you care enough, you could try to revive the project as a community effort under the MIT license.

(mind you, if there was an open source fork of this project, and Michael were to revive the project some day, all of the community's changes would be free for him to merge back to his own project as well. building an open source fork is not like just taking and giving nothing back - and, in fact, that's not possible under the license. anything the community builds onto this project under the MIT license is work that Michael is free to exploit, even commercially.)

[maxisam]

@mindplay-dk All I can say is you are free to do as you wish. I don't see anyone will stop you. The problem is more like if the community will follow you.

I am doing my own way as well, in a way I think I can respect the author and also benefit myself or others. Feel free to try my repo

#715 (comment)

You can just fork it and run the action and get your own build. Really not that difficial

just curious, any feature or any issue you have with the current state?

[mindplay-dk]

@maxisam I saw, and I wasn't going to comment, but... what you're doing seems much more dubious than what I'm proposing - the license specifically says:

Permission is NOT GRANTED to publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell derivative works of the Software.

I assume you think you're bending the rules by not publishing to the VS Code store? But you are publishing (distributing) your work (a derivative work) on Github, which is exactly what the license says you cannot do.

It's a very simply license, the restriction is very clear, and obviously not limited to publishing in the VS Code store.

[maxisam]

not sure about that. I think source code is not software. I don't provide build. Anyone need that, just fork it and run the action. And there is a way to disable fork, but the author didn't do that so I assume he allows people to fork his repo and modifying it. And he clearly knows how fork works, since he merge other people's PR and sometime he copy code and enhance it without using others PR. It is not something he missed.

[maxisam]

@Keavon if you disagree, please state your reason. Your thumb down doesn't really improve any situation and it is just provoking. I believe people here are reasonable and understanding many of us here contribute to OSS and trying to help the community.

[mindplay-dk]

I think source code is not software.

Of course source code is software. It's "software in source form". 🤷‍♂️

there is a way to disable fork, but the author didn't do that so I assume he allows people to fork his repo and modifying it.

For the purposes of allowing people to submit pull requests, yes - but specifically not so they can create derivative works.

I mean, do what you want, and I don't think Michael is ever going to even comment on any of it - but I would have to assume the intention with that change to the MIT license is he does not want someone maintaining a fork.

[maxisam]

@mindplay-dk TBH, I never thought about "software in source form". But I agree with your point. I will take it off public.

[mindplay-dk]

@maxisam I wonder how well your changes would rebase onto the earlier, MIT licensed version? 🤔 might be worth a try? 🙂

It's not like there was something wrong with the earlier, MIT licensed version - it just has fewer features and maybe needs some quality and compatibility updates to get it going.

There's no rules against going over the commit log since the license change either - to learn of any critical bug fixes that need to be addressed. It's only 360 or so commits in the years after the license change - most of them don't look too big or complicated.

From a first glance analysis, the biggest issue with the earlier version is it doesn't have a lot of tests, but those are relatively easy to get going with AI now, and they don't directly (visibly) affect the end user experience - tests are a substantial part of the code added since the license change. There's a whole custom event framework in there, which seems like one of those opinionated developer things end users won't notice - we can probably replace that with a third-party dependency. The project structure hasn't changed drastically (file/folder names etc.) so it's not an insurmountable task at all.

If you wanted to start a "legit" fork from the MIT licensed version, I might be up for helping. I honestly have no experience building a VS Code extension, but I can help in other ways - for one, I could start by simply going over the change log and opening issues for known bugs and missing features. We could bootstrap an open community version and people could start contributing the features and fixes.

Alternatively, I guess you could try opening a pull request, haha. I mean, we don't know if Michael is lurking or not. 😏

I don't see any alternative path for this project. If the community doesn't do something, this project is effectively dead.

[maxisam]

@maxisam I wonder how well your changes would rebase onto the earlier, MIT licensed version? 🤔 might be worth a try? 🙂

It's not like there was something wrong with the earlier, MIT licensed version - it just has fewer features and maybe needs some quality and compatibility updates to get it going.

There's no rules against going over the commit log since the license change either - to learn of any critical bug fixes that need to be addressed. It's only 360 or so commits in the years after the license change - most of them don't look too big or complicated.

From a first glance analysis, the biggest issue with the earlier version is it doesn't have a lot of tests, but those are relatively easy to get going with AI now, and they don't directly (visibly) affect the end user experience - tests are a substantial part of the code added since the license change. There's a whole custom event framework in there, which seems like one of those opinionated developer things end users won't notice - we can probably replace that with a third-party dependency. The project structure hasn't changed drastically (file/folder names etc.) so it's not an insurmountable task at all.

If you wanted to start a "legit" fork from the MIT licensed version, I might be up for helping. I honestly have no experience building a VS Code extension, but I can help in other ways - for one, I could start by simply going over the change log and opening issues for known bugs and missing features. We could bootstrap an open community version and people could start contributing the features and fixes.

Alternatively, I guess you could try opening a pull request, haha. I mean, we don't know if Michael is lurking or not. 😏

I don't see any alternative paths for this project. If the community doesn't do something, this project is effectively dead.

IMO, this project is dead already. The best I can do is to help some ”friends”. And I don't like that the other repo only provided a built file. I like to see it built for security reasons.

I don't think it's easy to do what you said. If you have seen my repo early, I made a lot of changes to fix the tests, code and bring the dependency up to date. I honestly just need 2 features author filter and commit message search, so I don't think I will invest more time into this. I did want to help others but I don't want to violate the license and I didn't think I was until you talked about your perspective. Anyway, I think as long as I don't share the code PUBLICLY, I think everything is fine 😉

[mindplay-dk]

IMO, this project is dead already.

I mean, you're probably right. 😌

It's kind of sad though, since even the older MIT licensed version was ahead of anything else that's available now.

Anyway, I think as long as I don't share the code PUBLICLY, I think everything is fine 😉

you're probably fine either way - yours is not the only public fork, and I mean, if the author isn't complaining... 🤷‍♂️😌

[aurexav]

I noticed a lot of chatter lately.

I've been subscribed to this for over 2 years, I'm nearly the first person to request this. (you can verify the date of the first issue linked to this)

I'm planning to unsubscribe. I won't be recommending this extension to anyone anymore. Initially, we were concerned about the author's well-being. Eventually, someone made contact with him. I'm glad to hear he's doing well. However, we've been waiting for a long time. I don’t care about the license. The most important thing that I care is that he hasn't even bothered to show up and say something like, "Thank you for supporting this extension, but I've been busy lately." Personally, I find him quite arrogant. This attitude cannot steer this community in the right direction.

I am still very grateful to him for creating such a fantastic tool. However, I hope people don't waste their time on this. If you are interested in developing this, I recommend sharing your idea here: microsoft/vscode#179053. Let's bring the git graph feature to VSCode.

[max-ra-gh]

This seems to be the company associated with the maintainer (IG/X accounts are active), if anyone wants to get in touch:

• https://16right.com/
• Grahame Hutchison
• https://www.instagram.com/16right_media/
• https://x.com/16right_media/

[Keavon]

I'd strongly encourage everyone to not pester him. He is well aware of his extension's success and yet has chosen to not put any time towards it. That's his decision and it's best we respect it. Spamming him would not be a very professional thing to do.

[Guddi11]

This seems to be the company associated with the maintainer (IG/X accounts are active), if anyone wants to get in touch:

[...]

@muhsim I found these pages some time ago (> 1yr) and indeed contacted him, when this discussion was still more active. There was never a response so I agree with @Keavon to not contact him anymore. There is probably some kind of decision from his part behind this.

[mindplay-dk]

There is probably some kind of decision from his part behind this.

If he had made a decision, he could indicate this to the community in any number of ways:

• Flag the extension as deprecated
• Flag the repository as abandoned
• Close this issue and block it from further replies
• Shut down the issue tracker
• Change the license and allow the community to take over where he left off
• Post a reply to let us know why he hasn't done any of those things

I agree with not contacting him though - cutting Github out of his life may have been a life decision.

It would be nice if we didn't have to speculate though. 💭

[giulianisanches]

I just found this extension today. It mentions that is a fork but i was not able to find the repository for it (when you click the linked repository in the extension page you get a 404).

Do anyone knows the author of this fork ? I would like to visit the repository before install it :)

Link

[Keavon]

@giulianisanches Forks are illegal.

[giulianisanches]

Well, someone needs to alert the author as the last update was today.

Anyway, will keep an eye on alternatives

Thanks

[mindplay-dk]

Well, someone needs to alert the author as the last update was today.

at this point, who cares?

it seems unlikely anyone will ever hear anything about this project from Michael again.

if he cared, he could complain, so it's at the fork author's own risk of course - but the only real risk is being ordered to take it down, any work being wasted.

Anyway, will keep an eye on alternatives

the built-in source control graph is quite nice already.

It definitely feels small in the default position of that panel, but for the record, you can drag it to the bottom panel, where it actually feels somewhat better situated than Git Graph does in an editor tab:

honestly, at this point we should just go and contribute to the built-in source graph feature and abandon this project.

granted, it doesn't do much yet - it's mostly a view, and the right-click menu has almost no options, but we can go and contribute those features under a proper open-source license. ❤️

based on the historical license change, you might guess Michael had plans to return to this project some day, and turn into a product with premium features or something... but if so, he's waited too long.

I feel like we've wasted enough time here - I'm going uninstall, unsubscribe, and make do with what VS Code provides.

This project was awesome while it lasted, but let's face it: it is really and truly dead. 🪦💐

[maxisam]

@giulianisanches Forks are illegal.

Fork is not illegal. There is a setting to disable that. If the author doesn't want people to fork, he can do so. In fact, he allowed that and took people's PR from forks before AWOL, so all indications shows forks are not illegal.

If people fork it and update the readme or license to show their intention is publishing, and yes, that could be illegal.

However, it will be up to the author.

[maxisam]

Well, someone needs to alert the author as the last update was today.

at this point, who cares?

it seems unlikely anyone will ever hear anything about this project from Michael again.

if he cared, he could complain, so it's at the fork author's own risk of course - but the only real risk is being ordered to take it down, any work being wasted.

@mindplay-dk you make it sound like wasting code is a big deal lol

I think the temporary solution is simple. Just create a fork and with a PR and update the README in the fork to state the intention is merging back to the original repo when Michael is available.

If there are 10 upvotes for this idea, I will contact @hansu and see if he wanna update his fork. Last time I check, his fork has most updated features.

https://github.com/hansu/vscode-git-graph

[mindplay-dk]

you make it sound like wasting code is a big deal lol

wasting time might be a big deal for someone who invested a lot 😌

I think the temporary solution is simple. Just create a fork and with a PR and update the README in the fork to state the intention is merging back to the original repo when Michael is available.

that's probably fine.

personally, I'd rather see the time invested in a properly licensed open-source project, and now that VS Code has laid down a nice foundation for it... idk, something about beating a dead horse? The hard part is done - I just want someone to figure out how to add shortcuts to the context menu and I'll be happy. Until then, I'll make do with what it has.