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

Evaluating new software forges

notgull.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#121

Post by sebastianconcpt »

ahepp wrote: post #66
sebastianconcpt wrote: post #8

Is not hard for me to see a case being built around the idea of finding value in having code to stay excluded from the surface exposed to AI so it becomes impossible for it to predate it. It's a type of "security" that doesn't find an answer in "better AIs" or "AIs with improved alignment". The value comes out of being safe from the risk that can come out of the humans in control of these AIs. I comes out of staying…

Shall we call it the "slow code movement"?

Nice. You're starting to make me think in how a manifesto should sound like.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#123

Post by aleph_minus_one »

Kwpolska wrote: post #120
potatopatch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd don't really see a difference between sending an email to a list or to a maintainer. Maybe that's an argument for not adding and adapting to unnecessary concepts like a web based pull request.

What if there’s more than one maintainer? How do you build any sort of community without a place for discussion?

> How do you build any sort of community without a place for discussion?

There exist many ways for this. Why does this have to be the same provider (if you don't want to self-host this functionality) as the one that hosts the server for the VCS?

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#124

Post by cxr »

lloeki wrote: post #64

I really wish a cross site standard emerged to enable PRs from one forge to the next without creating accounts: - clone repo from original forge, push on yours - open PR on your forge, kicking in a like-blog-trackbacks-of-yore API so that the PR would be known/opened on the original forge. The thing would really put the "Pull Request" back in PR. Lots of things to define and handle correctly to prevent abuse but it c…

The PR workflow is already overkill for about 90% of contributors and not what Git was designed for, anyway, so you can just ditch it. You have the repo on your machine, and you have a public upstream. You don't need an third copy on your own server, too—you just need a place to publish what you actually changed.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#125

Post by xyzzy123 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #122

Is source control now being called a "software forge" ?

I'm not a huge fan of the term either but source control is only a small part of the development process.

Most of these systems are an amalgamation of scm, ci/cd, issues, wikis, project management, security integrations, static site hosting, review workflows, management of release artifacts etc etc.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#126

Post by dr_kiszonka »

Ayesh wrote: post #5

Having tried GitHub, GitLab, Source Hut, Codeberg, and BitBucket (RIP), I think the only serious options are GitHub, GitLab self hosted, and Source Hut. GitHub owned by MSFT aside, and also putting their AI push _also_ aside, GitHub has things like Sponsors, Dependabot, and code scanning that you won't find anywhere else. They sure are luring you into ecosystems that require a huge escape velocity, but GitHub serves…

What irks me about GitHub is their LFS offering, which supports uploading/tracking files, but not deleting them. If you want to remove files from their LFS (and stop paying for it), you are supposed - and I am not kidding - delete the whole repo. (And they don't mention it on their LFS setup page.)

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#127

Post by toastal »

misterio7 wrote: post #42
toastal wrote: post #14

I’ve been moving into a self-hosted direction for a lot of my stuff as a lot of it really wasn’t being used by anyone but myself anyhow. My latest two projects are darcs on my home server using just SSH+Nginx for HTTP with an apply hook that run `nix flake check` & on the server end, a hook that runs `nix build` which not only checks the build, but also has the derivation in Nix store for me to pick up later as that…

You might want to try out self hosting hydra! It's pretty sweet for your usecase (building and caching Nix stuff, in a smart way). It can even run arbitrary commands (e.g. moving a release branch) EDIT: here's how I do it, in case it's useful: https://github.com/Misterio77/nix-config/blob/a74b2ede/hosts...

Could be useful in the future for sure if I ever get to a point beyond pushing “trunk” :)

…It would be great if darcs had Pijul’s channels …or Pijul’s CLI UX had parity with darcs

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#128

Post by RealStickman_ »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #105
RealStickman_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The layout of radicle.land is unfortunately pretty broken on mobile.

What is radicle.land? Both radicle.xyz and app.radicle.xyz seem fine for me on Firefox mobile. Did something change in the last few hours?

I meant protocol.land

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#129

Post by greatgib »

One time I wanted to test some specific flows with Gitlab, so I had the stupid idea to try to run my own self hosted instance on a Digital Ocean pod.

It was not really complicated to install but the resources that it is using are insane. First, it would not even start if you don't have a dozen of Gb of ram available. Also, even if completely empty, the thing would take 30 mins to warm up doing I don't know what before being available for initial setup.

In honest opinion, trying so much to copy GitHub, Gitlab became a heavy bloated software stack.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#130

Post by bayindirh »

easterncalculus wrote: post #85

One of the things that people should know about SourceHut is that even though it is "Free Software", it is not a very "free" platform. Certain types of projects are a red line to the owner and will be removed[0]. I'll be honest, I do not trust cryptocurrency stuff and don't believe that it has utility. I hold none, I don't use it. That being said, this makes me wonder what the next category of projects that SourceHut…

I'm actually pretty fine with this, because they are pretty open about one point:

> We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support.

First of all, it says that you can talk with a real human about this, second they are very open it.

When contrasted with a certain forge owned by Microsoft, which reaps my source code w/o my consent & regardless of its license to train a model which do not approve, Source Hut's stance is much more acceptable.

I'm fine with companies having opinions, and I love it when they're open about them instead of being faceless and do unpredictable things to benefit themselves.

And lastly, nobody forces you to work with a company you don't agree with. I don't work with GitHub anymore, and you're not preferring SourceHut. That's OK.

Post reply on HN