461–468 of 468 posts
I miss something like GitHub but - hosted in the EU - without "FOSS only" limitation like codeberg. I know I can self-host forgejo but would be nice to have something like forge.eu (even paid!)
SourceHut is actually from Amsterdam, and has both unlisted and private repo visibility. It's also self hostable, but I'm on the $2 tier and damn is it good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've sorta overlooked Fossil a lot (mostly because it's not git...), but just browsing some instances on chisel and the fossil homepage has me intrigued. If you'll entertain me for a moment... My dream "forge" would just be nice-looking frontend for displaying repos on the web, a public issue tracker (with per-issue permissions), a public way to submit issues, and essentially a single canonical root for repositories…
I can entertain you since no one else has so far. I've been using Fossil since 2009. > My dream "forge" would just be nice-looking frontend for displaying repos on the web, a public issue tracker (with per-issue permissions), a public way to submit issues, and essentially a single canonical root for repositories that users on the team work on. Fossil will get you the frontend (for some value of nice-looking) for disp…
> For products you're developing that involve multiple repositories, it's possible to use a "meta repository"[1] to establish what's called a login group
Gotcha; that makes sense considering how users are handled.
> There's some social stuff if you find later that you want it. Fossil development moved from a more traditional mailing list to a self-hosted forum a while ago, but it isn't enabled by default.
That all sounds reasonable (this + the tech notes you mention next). I generalized a bit too wide when I said "social stuff". I was thinking more along the social media angle (GitHub stars, follows, etc.); but with the way it sounds, that wouldn't make sense given the user model anyway!
I currently run a Forgejo instance for a small team, and I can disable some of those features, but it just feels a bit messy with so many UI elements that don't have a purpose.
> If you stick just to HTML and CSS, you should be fine. The functionality is pretty spartan.
I think I'll have to try it out to see what is possible on this front!
> This is governed by the capabilities assigned to a user. [...]
Between this and login groups, it actually looks quite reasonable to manage a set of repositories in the way I'd like! I really dig everything being so tightly coupled to a given project, actually. Makes me a bit bummed I never gave Fossil a look all these years.
> 2: Funnily enough, it shares the same pain as administering Plan 9's fossil(4) fileserver.
Reading that over, I can see how that requires some due diligence. I already foresee the inevitable "why weren't the changes propagated to the other repositories?" moment.
I think this will be my weekend project!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can entertain you since no one else has so far. I've been using Fossil since 2009. > My dream "forge" would just be nice-looking frontend for displaying repos on the web, a public issue tracker (with per-issue permissions), a public way to submit issues, and essentially a single canonical root for repositories that users on the team work on. Fossil will get you the frontend (for some value of nice-looking) for disp…
Thanks for the insights! > For products you're developing that involve multiple repositories, it's possible to use a "meta repository"[1] to establish what's called a login group Gotcha; that makes sense considering how users are handled. > There's some social stuff if you find later that you want it. Fossil development moved from a more traditional mailing list to a self-hosted forum a while ago, but it isn't enable…
Most welcome!
> I generalized a bit too wide when I said "social stuff". I was thinking more along the social media angle (GitHub stars, follows, etc.)
I figured given the context, but I wanted to cover this base too just in the off chance that the intention was different. I overcorrected a little perhaps. (:
> I already foresee the inevitable "why weren't the changes propagated to the other repositories?" moment.
It's something of an ironic "What manages the configuration of the software configuration management system?" moment, really. My suggestion is to have a sensible chuckle at it.
> I think this will be my weekend project!
I hope to read more about it!
https://tangled.org ! Founder/CEO here. We're a new forge building things from the ground up, and are fully federated -- you can host your git repos on your own infra, along with the CI runners. We've also got a pretty neat set of features (if I may say so myself): stacked PRs, Nix-based CI (if you want it), and a fully open protocol ( https://atproto.com ) to for you and your agents. Happy to answer any questions.
And atproto isn't really something I'd want to be around; it's really associated with the wrong crowds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a little disappointed, because your comment made it look great, but when i look at >1000 commits in 2 months and inspect a few commits randomly, it looks like 100% slopware. The concept is marvelous, but i'm 100% not trusting slop near my infra, and i'm 100% not trusting people who are not upfront about vibecoding in their README and raise my hopes for nothing. I suspect most sysadmins, like me, will not trust LL…
Much of the code was certainly written by agents, as is most of the code now. That said, there's a big difference between "vibe coding" and "agentic coding". The latter requires careful and thoughtful design and review. I've invested heavily in different kinds of guardrails to ensure conformance. An effort like this would not be reasonably feasible without agents or would take significantly longer(act has been around…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like the description of Radicle. :-) https://radicle.dev/guides/protocol#collaborative-objects
That's not really what I'm looking for. Radicle is trying to define specific functionality the system supports: a single protocol which combines multiple separate use cases into one standard. What I want is a system that doesn't define functionality. I want something protocol- less . The larger system design prescribes only loose i/o channels between components, so (for example) you know you can interrogate something…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love Fossil, I have been using it for all of my projects for the last couple years. Things that I love include: 1. batteries included single-file functionality (fossil binary + sqlite file and I have everything!) 2. Hosting them is super easy, I have a lighttpd server configured to do cgi-bin, and i just pop the project.fossil file onto the server and I have a project. The biggest friction is managing users across…
Those two pipe dreams sound really cool! Do you have a website or something to lurk you via if you eventuality get around to those? I find it difficult to keep up, as it were, using form histories and other social media platforms.