Radicle: Sovereign {code forge} built on Git

Feels like using a free Jenkins gets you everything you want. Doesn't need more than a container or Java either.

Basically allow people to deploy something closer to gitea on a webserver initially, which has all the basic protocol features and sharing aspects implemented.

Currently the focus seems to have been very much on just the seeding & p2p part which honestly is good but not very useful for me as a developer/user who wants to work on a collaborative project.

Prioritizing P2P makes sense, but the UX/DX of radicle is not intuitive to put it mildly.

I went to the explorer radicle.network and my own as well and I still had no idea how to create an issue or submit a patch or login to an account or anything of that sort.

I opened the cli and figured out how to do all that, but then I created another node on my web server and now I have no idea how to connect to it, then I figured out how to do that, now how do I share my node without sharing it publicly, figured that out.

Cool now we are at the starting point, so every time I need to work on a project i will have to clone it, but why can't I create stuff in webui.

Maybe there is a setting I can't seem to find it yet.

But the jumping through hoops is mindbending. For a solution that could replace github for me and my friends who maintain a few public projects that wants small contributions from large number of folks as we try and maintain the local "tech" clubs.

Getting low information folks to use within 10 mins, is the bar that I have set for any platform I can use to replace github.

Radicle isn't that yet! anyways.

But I like the direction, putting contributors, access list, issues and prs in the repo is a brilliant idea, maybe put agent plans in it too, agent sessions as well maybe...

I would go as far as to say, something like a radicle network is better than every other alternative, but the UX is just not there yet.

Maybe I'm not the target audience for this, so pardon my ignorance when I ask what problem does this solve? Centralization and censorship?

Edit:

Breaking down the “word salad”:

> Radicle is a peer-to-peer code collaboration platform (“forge”) built on Git.

Peer-to-peer: it functions with individual nodes on the network spreading state for tracking it without relying on a single entity or centralised service.

Code collaboration platform (forge): you use it not just to store code but provides a way to keep track of “patches” (their term for PRs) and issues, amongst other things, to enable multiple people to collaborate on a code base

Built on git: the technology runs on top of git insofar as not only is the VCS just git, but the issues, patches, etc are stored in git. So the project isn’t merely developed using git, but when running the tool yourself it’s still backing everything under git.

Crates.io has not moved away from Github-only authentication, and got into the habit of yelling at people who complained about it.

> crates.io's attachment to GitHub is a fact about crates.io specifically, not the Cargo crate registry protocol

Is this just trivia you wanted to share? I feel like I covered it in the second sentence of the comment you're replying to.

> Cargo's support for Git repositories is generic across Git and has nothing to do with GitHub specifically

I'm looking to compile Rust projects from the semi-standard commonly-used crates. I do not want a Github account.

> Radicle offers nothing to a crate registry that a Git remote doesn't

Radicle offers peer-to-peer hosting that does not require a Github account.

> none of this has anything to do with the GPL.

Radicle is a project being built in Rust that partially reimplements git. Git is GPL-licensed, Radicle is MIT-licensed.

> It feels like you're just listing off things you like and don't like aesthetically.

I am unconcerned about your feelings. What I was saying is that I would like a peer-to-peer hosted, namespaced code repository that mirrors (or replaces) crates.io, and I do not want a github account to be necessary to use it.

> They have nothing to do with each other structurally.

I have no idea what "they" is referring to in this sentence.