Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is BitBucket still an Atlassian product?
It is.
Yeah that would be a deal breaker for me.
Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
31–40 of 63 posts
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#32Since there are so many threads already, here is a recap of the competition:
Self Hosted (in order of anecdotal popularity) - Gitlab - Gitea (fork of Gogs) - Gogs - Phabricator - GitBucket - Rhodecode - Kalithea (fork of Rhodecode) - GitPrep - Allura - GitSSB - Pagure
If you want hosted Git, there are many competitors, but some of the notable are - Gitlab - Attlassian BitBucket - Google Cloud Repositories - Amazon CodeCommit - Canonical Launchpad - Sourceforge
All of which assume you want git, but other DVCSs are Mercurial (which is supported by a number of the above servers) and Fossil.
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But it's not the only one. I think the question you were hoping to have answered is, "Why would you pick this over GitLab?". And potentially the discussion you wanted to invoke was, "Is there an advantage to going with a full free software solution as opposed to a product that is primarily proprietary, but has an open core?" Personally, I think there is, but in the case of GitLab it may not matter. Now that ther…
In a way AFAIK Gnome and Debian moved to GitLab, because, among other reasons, they did not have enough horse power to maintain their own solution - plethora of services. Of course if the GitLab would fold, they would maintain it, but I'm not sure they would be better off than before in case of work allocation at least.
If gitlab were to fold, they would probably move to whoever is the best candidate at the time.
While moving is very painful, the fact that git is distributed means that setting up camp somewhere else is pretty smooth. Even the headaches of the other stuff, such as issues et al, will probably be handled by whoever the new host is.
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#34Since there are so many threads already, here is a recap of the competition: Self Hosted (in order of anecdotal popularity) - Gitlab - Gitea (fork of Gogs) - Gogs - Phabricator - GitBucket - Rhodecode - Kalithea (fork of Rhodecode) - GitPrep - Allura - GitSSB - Pagure If you want hosted Git, there are many competitors, but some of the notable are - Gitlab - Attlassian BitBucket - Google Cloud Repositories - Amazon Co…
http://sr.ht is another service.
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#35Does anybody knows about some alternative with homepage feature something like github pages?
Gitbucket - http://github.com/gitbucket/gitbucket
It has a "pages" plugin, at the time of writing it is mentioned in the README
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#36Since there are so many threads already, here is a recap of the competition: Self Hosted (in order of anecdotal popularity) - Gitlab - Gitea (fork of Gogs) - Gogs - Phabricator - GitBucket - Rhodecode - Kalithea (fork of Rhodecode) - GitPrep - Allura - GitSSB - Pagure If you want hosted Git, there are many competitors, but some of the notable are - Gitlab - Attlassian BitBucket - Google Cloud Repositories - Amazon Co…
What's the difference between hosted and self-hosted?
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#37I hope there won't be anymore one single source control site that everybody uses.
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#38But instead of only the code being handled by the VCS, why not make the wiki and tracker distributed too? Fossil: https://fossil-scm.org/ Notable user: https://sqlite.org/whynotgit.html
I'm going to give Fossil a try, mainly because it is the only thing I've seen that has everything that I currently want. I'm a little bit worried about the Cathedral/Bazaar approach... I really like the idea that every copy of the source code is an implied branch. However, I suspect that I will have few enough collaborators for it to be of any matter. Their characterisation of GPL vs BSD licensing in the git vs fossi…
When taken out of context, it does sound bad, but please include the entire paragraph, because it's clear that not as you describe.
> To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed back under the same license. (The details are more complex, but the foregoing captures the essence of the idea.) A big advantage of the GPL is that anybody can contribute to the code without having to sign additional legal documentation because they have implied their acceptance of the GPL license by the very act of reading the source code. This means that a GPL project can legally accept anonymous and drive-by patches.
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#39Since there are so many threads already, here is a recap of the competition: Self Hosted (in order of anecdotal popularity) - Gitlab - Gitea (fork of Gogs) - Gogs - Phabricator - GitBucket - Rhodecode - Kalithea (fork of Rhodecode) - GitPrep - Allura - GitSSB - Pagure If you want hosted Git, there are many competitors, but some of the notable are - Gitlab - Attlassian BitBucket - Google Cloud Repositories - Amazon Co…
What's the difference between hosted and self-hosted?
Self-hosted means you own a computer and you install their software on it. Hosted means they own the computer and run their software on it, but they allow you to have an account and store your code there.
If you don't know what you want, you probably want hosted.
Re: Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to give Fossil a try, mainly because it is the only thing I've seen that has everything that I currently want. I'm a little bit worried about the Cathedral/Bazaar approach... I really like the idea that every copy of the source code is an implied branch. However, I suspect that I will have few enough collaborators for it to be of any matter. Their characterisation of GPL vs BSD licensing in the git vs fossi…
When taken out of context, it does sound bad, but please include the entire paragraph, because it's clear that not as you describe. > To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contribu…
This entire paragraph is incorrect. You do not imply your acceptance of the GPL by reading the source code. You do not have to accept the license at all. However, if you do not accept the license, then you have no right to distribute the code. It is on conveyance (distribution) that the restrictions show up. There are absolutely no restrictions on what you can do if you do not distribute the code.
That whole section in their documentation is just weird, to be honest. There is nothing in the BSD license that requires you to sign additional legal documentation either. The fossil project requires copyright assignment to include your code in the project (many FSF projects require the same thing with their projects for similar reasons).
They should just delete that section so that they don't look like they don't know what they are talking about.
Edit: They could rewrite the section to say that by distributing the code you have implicitly agreed to the license. This is more or less true. The license actually hinges on the fact that you never have to agree, but that if you don't agree then you only that the rights assigned to you by copyright (see section 9 of the GPL v3). The bit that's weird is that there is absolutely no difference with the BSD license -- you don't have to agree, but if you don't, then you don't have a license. The only real difference is that the BSD license doesn't explicitly say so.
At first I thought they were trying to make a political point, but the more I look at it, the more I think they just want to justify requiring copyright assignment. The obvious question is "Why don't all those GPL projects require it?" So they came up with something plausible, but completely incorrect.