51–60 of 219 posts
They violently break all the recent frontend best practices. Where is the React or Vie, SPA architecture, tons of JS? There should be a federal law prohibiting making fast and simple UIs so that nobody will have concerns that the UI frameworks war leads us to great future.
They violently break all the recent frontend best practices. Where is the React or Vie, SPA architecture, tons of JS? There should be a federal law prohibiting making fast and simple UIs so that nobody will have concerns that the UI frameworks war leads us to great future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
gitweb requires server setup, while Mercurial web ui can quickly start locally without any configuration and that was the one of mercurial selling point until github and other services arrives.
`git instaweb` is sufficient to get a working gitweb stood up.
lighttpd not found. Install lighttpd or use --httpd to specify another httpd daemon.
Apparently, not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The competitor is leaving the market, which hardly makes them a competitor at all. Any users who don't want to be left out in the cold need tools like this.
Then why not make the tool open source + standalone and compatible with other alternatives like GitHub/GitLab/Gitea/Gogs/etc. so the users can pick the competitor or tool they like?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why not make the tool open source + standalone and compatible with other alternatives like GitHub/GitLab/Gitea/Gogs/etc. so the users can pick the competitor or tool they like?
Why are you stating that the tool is not open source? Did you even check that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why not make the tool open source + standalone and compatible with other alternatives like GitHub/GitLab/Gitea/Gogs/etc. so the users can pick the competitor or tool they like?
The tool is open source, and none of the services you listed support Mercurial, so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
git has gitweb: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-GitWeb But in both cases, the user has to have a server to put it on, making services like Sourcehut and Bitbucket (may it rest in peace) useful.
gitweb requires server setup, while Mercurial web ui can quickly start locally without any configuration and that was the one of mercurial selling point until github and other services arrives.
A web UI is fine for being able to see the different commits, and files at different points in time.
But people also make use of GitHub as a hosted repository for sharing code with others, as an issue tracker, and for doing code review etc. -- for sharing things outside a local network, there's the understanding that either you're paying someone else to host it, or you're making effort to host it yourself, so "requires setup" isn't much of an issue.
"sourcehut competes with bitbucket" puts more emphasis on the latter than the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The competitor is leaving the market, which hardly makes them a competitor at all. Any users who don't want to be left out in the cold need tools like this.
Then why not make the tool open source + standalone and compatible with other alternatives like GitHub/GitLab/Gitea/Gogs/etc. so the users can pick the competitor or tool they like?