They need to put more effort on UI design. Gitea is a lot uglier than its alternative.
It doesn't look quite as good as Github but it's miles ahead of Gitlab
Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
41–50 of 187 posts
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I constantly make that mistake. I don't know why, I simply can't seem to get the muscle memory right for some reason, and I always do ()[] first.
I always remember it as alphabetical order, brackets then parens, b then p.
I remember it as calling a function. :)
nameOfLink(url)Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is comparable to how Codeberg [0] is organized, which is also based on Gitea and one of the larger contributors upstream. Yet the number of members is tiny in comparison to their person base and growth. According to their latest numbers [1]: > We are hosting 42010 repositories, created and maintained by 34042 users. Compared to one month ago, this is an organic growth rate of +3372 repositories (+8.7% month-over…
To be fair, they don't exactly make it low-friction to become a member: > Membership fees are debited by means of SEPA direct debit. Please email to contact@codeberg.org for other transfer methods.
FWIW, in Germany, that is an extremely convenient way of paying.
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is comparable to how Codeberg [0] is organized, which is also based on Gitea and one of the larger contributors upstream. Yet the number of members is tiny in comparison to their person base and growth. According to their latest numbers [1]: > We are hosting 42010 repositories, created and maintained by 34042 users. Compared to one month ago, this is an organic growth rate of +3372 repositories (+8.7% month-over…
To be fair, they don't exactly make it low-friction to become a member: > Membership fees are debited by means of SEPA direct debit. Please email to contact@codeberg.org for other transfer methods.
tbf, SEPA direct debit is across the Eurozone a both common as well as easy way of transfering funds.
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#45For me the main deterrent from Gitea has been their approach to UI design. The shameless inspiration (if you can call it that) they took from Github is pretty startling, the two interfaces look pretty much identical (well, Github has recently redesigned its repo page, but many can remember the old design).
Sure, get inspired, make something similar here or there, but this is an outright copy of the whole product design.
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't even mention a single thing about crypto?
They mention "a decentralized autonomous organization" which is a blockchain invention (a "smart contract" thingie): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organ...
One of the sponsors listed on their home page is also blockchain-related.
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#47Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#48I am happy that my git host of choice has a very simple monetization/sustainability model: I pay money, they host my code. Thanks ddevault and anyone else from Sourcehut who may see this!
Thanks :)
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#49They need to put more effort on UI design. Gitea is a lot uglier than its alternative.
This makes no sense. I have never heard anyone say github was ugly and gitea pretty much replicates most of it.
It could be more singular/original but people using that kind of tools are looking to get the job done, not to use some fancy website. I'd rather have speed than anything else.
It is funny that on the same community people can blame an open source tool such as gimp for not being a straight copy of photoshop, then are not happy when another open source project is staight copu of a proprietary one.
Re: Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
#50Gitea is a great piece of software. In fact, when starting out with self hosting, I found it to be a very capable solution with a small footprint. Over time I realized: I don’t need to be able to merge pull requests and do code reviews in a web interface. Nowadays I’m invested in a plain Git/SSH setup with cgit as a web frontend and email patches. It never breaks, is as secure as your server is and does everything yo…
I agree. I can't even remember why I was so scared of trying out email + path workflow, but after trying it for just 1 time I was convinced. It is so obviously good way to manage patches, you get a unified interface to bugs, patches, communication and everything in-between.
I can understand some folks not wanting to do initial setup and sourcehut already provides a nice web interface for it. But for actually contributing stuff emails are pretty unbeatable IMO.