Considering Sourcehut

#1

Post by Dunedan » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

Considering Sourcehut
postmarketos.org

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#2

Post by octoberfranklin » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:24 AM UTC

No post body was provided.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#3

Post by junon » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:27 AM UTC

octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Because it's inconvenient. I went down the sourcehut road. Realized people don't need that stuff to develop, and it's way more annoying to work with when you just want to get something done and you don't _care_ about the "truly decentralized" parts.

To be clear, I adore sourcehut and it felt like a good way to develop. Certainly felt more like a hacker doing it. But I had the exact concerns as the author. I needed contributors, or the potential for that.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#4

Post by bayindirh » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:28 AM UTC

octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Because many people are afraid of what is not familiar, that's it.

It's not hostility, but a rather a case of shying away from reading the docs and changing the way they work.

From my experience not everyone is conductive to try and adapt to new ways, and many people do not use git CLI or SSH. They just use GitHub's gh CLI command.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#5

Post by lucideer » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:31 AM UTC

octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Because:

- UX is important to the average software developer

- UX within popular email clients targeting the task of code review is non-existent

- UX within IDEs for code review is better but: (a) send-email integrations are less polished/mature than they could be (largely due to the dominance of PR/MR flows) and (b) IDE code-review UX is still, despite everything, lagging Web UI code review UX

TL;DR: open distributed specs are what we need ideally, but you can't escape the fact that they'll always need much more work to overcome feature inconsistency and niche uses

---

I'm really rooting for sourcehut in this battle as I think if it got some adoption we could start seeing improvements to the above problems (they're all surmountable), but I think the biggest thing that's going to help that adoption is sourcehut adding a (good) web UI for their flow, per https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/lists.sr.ht/111

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#6

Post by anotherhue » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:31 AM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #4

octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Because many people are afraid of what is not familiar, that's it. It's not hostility, but a rather a case of shying away from reading the docs and changing the way they work. From my experience not everyone is conductive to try and adapt to new ways, and many people do not use git CLI or SSH. They just use GitHub's gh CLI command.

I agree, I see many impedances (sorry) in command line usage. I think the percentage of people who can use one declines every year, there's simply no competing with the advertising budgets of flashier systems.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#7

Post by drKarl » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:37 AM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #4

octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Because many people are afraid of what is not familiar, that's it. It's not hostility, but a rather a case of shying away from reading the docs and changing the way they work. From my experience not everyone is conductive to try and adapt to new ways, and many people do not use git CLI or SSH. They just use GitHub's gh CLI command.

It's not black or white, I love CLI and I use git CLI and SSH, I use tmux, vim etc, but to diff two branches or perform a code review I prefer my IDE (IntelliJ Idea) or a Pull/Merge Request on GitHub, Gitlab or similar

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#8

Post by jraph » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:38 AM UTC

Makes sense. SourceHut is probably perfect for Postmarket OS. Both have a strong taste for minimalism and free software. Choosing hosting provided by SourceHut instead of self hosting may also help fund SourceHut itself so that's good too. Go for it!

I too am not really happy with GitLab.com. It requires contributors to fill a reCAPTCHA and I'm not a fan of it being open core. I chose Gitorious (and was moved to GitLab.com when it disappears) precisely because I don't want to endorse proprietary software, nor tracking. I don't want to run proprietary code - from Google! - and, above all, make people run Google's proprietary code and tracking. That's just not coherent. GitLab is considering moving to hCaptcha if I remember correctly but that's still proprietary and still a third party.

So I made the jump two weeks ago. I now self host my code. I pay for the resources I use so no more strange free lunch. I personally find SourceHut a bit bare but that might just be habits. I picked Gitea instead. People can log in with their GitHub or GitLab account if they wish so the argument that it prevents contributions because you have to create yet another account does not hold. Gitea is quite fast and works well without JS at least for consulting the code. It's quite easy to set up - I have already been self-hosting a number of services for years know. It's also very straightforward easy to use - much more than GitLab so far. I don't force anybody to run proprietary software to use or contribute to my projects.

For people who don't want to self host but would like an alternative to GitLab, Codeberg [1] is worth checking out, in addition to Source Hut. It uses Gitea. It's been mentioned in one of the latest blog posts from Drew Devault (the creator of SourceHut) by the way. It's hosted in Germany, too, if it matters. I guess it would be good to support them.

[1] https://codeberg.org/

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#9

Post by Arnavion » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:38 AM UTC

octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Right, calling contributors "hostile" and putting "hate" in their mouths is sure to win them over to your cause...

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#10

Post by bayindirh » Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 8:41 AM UTC

drKarl wrote: post #7

bayindirh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because many people are afraid of what is not familiar, that's it. It's not hostility, but a rather a case of shying away from reading the docs and changing the way they work. From my experience not everyone is conductive to try and adapt to new ways, and many people do not use git CLI or SSH. They just use GitHub's gh CLI command.

It's not black or white, I love CLI and I use git CLI and SSH, I use tmux, vim etc, but to diff two branches or perform a code review I prefer my IDE (IntelliJ Idea) or a Pull/Merge Request on GitHub, Gitlab or similar

Of course. I'm in the same boat with you, but in the younger generation I generally see a trend.

GitHub creates this intellectual soft-jail, making developers think that the only way to work with git is gh or GitHub itself. If Kernel can cooperate with e-mail, everybody can.

OTOH, Source Hut is considering a PR-Like subsystem IIRC, and they use mail-based collaboration primarily, because it allows cooperation without opening an account with Source Hut.

This is an important feature, and line of thought, if you ask me.