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

Git without a forge

chiark.greenend.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Git without a forge

#121

Post by didntcheck »

sph wrote: post #120
bjackman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work smoothly for Linux kernel folks. It's a huge pain in the arse to review code. Some subprojects have CI but mostly it's too much work to set it up. You never know if the code that gets merged is truly what got reviewed. Half the time if you wanna test out someone's patches you have to spend 20 minutes trying to figure out what base commit they even apply to. Old fashioned mail clients are huge pain to…

[flagged]

The parent post already outlined the various problems. Not wanting to deal with all of that getting in the way of your actual work doesn't make you a "script kiddie" or mean you can't format an email

Re: Git without a forge

#122

Post by lordgroff »

ndegruchy wrote: post #2

This is what I love about Fossil[1]. You get all of those extra tools (wiki, chat, forums, bug tracker) in the server that is also in the binary that you use to manage the repo. So, if you want to serve it, just `fossil server file.fossil` or serve a whole directory of them. Or, if you want, you can just `fossil ui` and muck around yourself, locally. The server supports SSH and HTTPS interactions for cloning and push…

If Fossil let me rebase, I'd never use git for personal projects again. I love the whole all-in-one approach and it's all so functional. But the (almost extreme) hostility to a rebase workflow makes it a no go for me, and I'm sure many others.

Re: Git without a forge

#123

Post by zoobab »

mellosouls wrote: post #89

The author is obviously entitled to whatever workflow he chooses to use, and he isn't proselytizing here, but by choosing to sidestep industry standards he is ultimately just putting obstacles in front of other coders who might like to contribute. Unless you're really into git and email, it's just tiresome and a time sink having to work all this out. Fwiw I've used putty in the past and appreciate his efforts, if not…

"sidestep industry standards"

De-facto standards are not standards.

Standards are properly discussed, and consensus is detected among the participants.

There was never a discussion on making Github an "industry standard".

Re: Git without a forge

#124

Post by Brian_K_White »

jeroenhd wrote: post #98
Brian_K_White wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I submitted at least one patch to putty some time ago and it was such a nothingburger I don't even remember what it took. Somehow it neither baffled nor infuriated nor even annoyed me a little. All these complaints and critiques sound like so much baby crying over nothing to me.

Same with the account creation on normal git websites. You fill out three fields and click a link in your email, it's no more complex than git send-email. I'm sure I can figure out the archaic git email system, how hard can it possibly be? Same with the git bundle thing, this is the first time I've read about it but it seems usable. I don't expect anyone I'll ever directly work with to know what the hell a bundle fil…

These deep thoughts would almost be slightly interesting except for a kind of big elephant that you somehow missed:

He's not writing about how you should run your project for his convenience.

Re: Git without a forge

#125

Post by bjackman »

didntcheck wrote: post #121
sph wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The parent post already outlined the various problems. Not wanting to deal with all of that getting in the way of your actual work doesn't make you a "script kiddie" or mean you can't format an email

Yeah exactly. I can format an email. I can dig a hole in the ground to do a shit, but I prefer to use a toilet. Doesn't mean I can't dig holes.

If you want to deliberately exclude new developers (which is a stupid thing to want), you can do that. You don't have to additionally shoot yourself in the foot by sticking to a broken workflow as an instrumental goal.

Re: Git without a forge

#127

Post by sshine »

nhanb wrote: post #50
sneak wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could write a static site generator to generate a website from the repo, so you’re still just serving static files.

I once explored doing just that: https://github.com/nhanb/boast However I never got around to finishing it, mainly because I couldn't decide on where to stop: should I also generate commits from all non-master branches etc. I flirted with the idea of a browser-side repo viewer too, but re-implementing git packfile parsing in js didn't seem like something I'd want to spend my time on, so I moved on. Glad to see others…

Nice work. This has been on my bucket list to make for a few years. If you ask me, yes: make an .html file for each non-orphan commit on each branch.

Re: Git without a forge

#128

Post by zoobab »

DJHenk wrote: post #91
mellosouls wrote: post #89

The author is obviously entitled to whatever workflow he chooses to use, and he isn't proselytizing here, but by choosing to sidestep industry standards he is ultimately just putting obstacles in front of other coders who might like to contribute. Unless you're really into git and email, it's just tiresome and a time sink having to work all this out. Fwiw I've used putty in the past and appreciate his efforts, if not…

The regular forges have just as many obstacles. You have to register an account, figure out whether the button you need is 'Pull Request' or 'Merge Request', and what the exact flow is. The only reason things appeared simple in the past is because of GitHub's monopoly. As soon as you want to get rid of that, life gets more complicated. That is just another tradeoff you have to make.

Like: "You need a mobile phone number and a mobile subscription to receive an SMS to login."

Re: Git without a forge

#129

Post by immibis »

mcherm wrote: post #117
ackyshake wrote: post #87

> A particular thing I don’t like about git forge websites is the way they make you create an account. Exactly. I used to have a GitHub account but as soon as it got bought out by Microsoft, I was gone. I still refuse to create an account, even though there have been bugs I wanted to report or patches I wanted to contribute. Maybe some maintainers still have email addresses on their profile, many don't. Even if they…

I am curious -- what is your concern about creating an account? Is it security? Privacy? The need to keep track of it?

My GitHub account is blocked because I refuse to give them my phone number or install their app. They refused a GDPR deletion request too.

Re: Git without a forge

#130

Post by immibis »

q0uaur wrote: post #41
IshKebab wrote: post #6

> Sometimes people just can’t work out how to send me patches at all. Yeah indeed. I have written but not submitted patches to a project (OpenSBI) because it made the submission process super complicated, requiring signing up to a mailing list, learning how to set up git send-email. I don't see how he can think creating a GitHub account (which almost everyone already has) is a big barrier when he freely admits his pr…

Back when i checked out sr.ht, i really liked the idea of git-send-email precisely because it doesn't require making an account for everything. there's a nice tutorial for how to set it up: https://git-send-email.io/#step-1 worked easily enough for me, i could see myself using it for small patches here and there. I did end up installing forgejo in my homelab after all, but back then it sounded like federation was muc…

Pragmatically, how about fediverse sign in? Tweet this nonce to a bot account to log in.
Post reply on HN