Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

sourcehut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 219 posts

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#141

Post by notus »

majewsky wrote: post #116
notus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that really matters is the entry point size in modern application. I built an admin console for our company in react and it's downloaded and rendered in 220ms. People can make performant SPA's they just choose not to.

> for our company Is that in a single location? If so, then it's not really impressive. A good website loads fast even when the client is on the other side of the globe.

It goes out to all the cloudfront edge locations so that generally isn't an issue. That being said anything under 300ms is not going to be very noticeable to most people.

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#142

Post by johnchristopher »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #99
ulkesh wrote: post #74

Serious questions... What does mercurial offer that git doesn’t? Is the transition to git difficult for projects currently housed in a mercurial repository?

There are a few good things about it compared to git (and a few bad ones). One I like is that it has an excellent GUI that is cross platform, called TortoiseHg. I know hackers can be a bit snobbish about GUIs but I really think a GUI is essential for version control: flicking through the revision graph in one pane while looking at the modified files in another and a file's changes in a third is much more efficient th…

What about https://www.sublimemerge.com/ ?

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#143

Post by edgarvaldes »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #99
ulkesh wrote: post #74

Serious questions... What does mercurial offer that git doesn’t? Is the transition to git difficult for projects currently housed in a mercurial repository?

There are a few good things about it compared to git (and a few bad ones). One I like is that it has an excellent GUI that is cross platform, called TortoiseHg. I know hackers can be a bit snobbish about GUIs but I really think a GUI is essential for version control: flicking through the revision graph in one pane while looking at the modified files in another and a file's changes in a third is much more efficient th…

I really liked SourceTree around version 1.7, but the new GUI is not so comfortable to me. I'm also looking for an alternative.

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#144

Post by strken »

uncletaco wrote: post #123
quietbritishjim wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few good things about it compared to git (and a few bad ones). One I like is that it has an excellent GUI that is cross platform, called TortoiseHg. I know hackers can be a bit snobbish about GUIs but I really think a GUI is essential for version control: flicking through the revision graph in one pane while looking at the modified files in another and a file's changes in a third is much more efficient th…

Magit is a good one. But its an emacs package and, well, I wouldn't want to shy over the fact that it may require some effort.

Magit is probably the most productive git client I've ever used. The only caveat is that some operations on certain repos can take a lot of time and CPU power, and lock up Emacs while they're going on.

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#146

Post by sunflowerdeath »

viach wrote: post #41

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.

The interface does not seem fast and simple to me, it's more like primitive and unfinished. Using minimalistic SPA library, like, for example, Preact, adding some feedback for stuff like form validating and data loading would make ux more smooth. I dont want to say that SPAs are best for everybody, but I can't agree that they are always evil.

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#147

Post by t0astbread »

panpanna wrote: post #46
viach wrote: post #41

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.

Monthly operational costs: $783 Maybe there is a relation?

I guess this boils down to the classic: No approach is universally better.

You can write a client-side application and distribute it through some CDN (like Netlify) and have no administration duties or server cost. However, your app will end up not working without JS (and your tech stack could possibly be a mess, depending on your choices). Or you can generate pages on the server which requires you to have, well, a server.

Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks.

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#148

Post by panpanna »

majewsky wrote: post #117
dsissitka wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about that figure but there's https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CBVRVZEWYB30Q.... . Looks like their monthly expenses were around $1,200 going in to Q2.

And that's for an offering including a CI build farm. Not just a website.

I just took 640+129/3

Anyway, few hundred dollars added or subtracted doesn't really change the point. This is a fairly cheap operation given what it provides.

Re: Sourcehut welcomes Bitbucket refugees

#149

Post by giancarlostoro »

Crinus wrote: post #128
mkane848 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, but users think it's ugly and doesn't look "right" or "modern" :/

Which users?

The ones that usually flock to platforms. Course then you have classic reddit and 4chan which had pretty simple designs.
Post reply on HN