I think github is at a point that its too hard to ignore just like google is even though we might not like what they are doing now but we were the one made them this big.
Before GitHub
151–160 of 255 posts
Re: Before GitHub
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Codeberg?
The problem is GitHub spends on the order of $100m/year on providing free CI. Nobody else can compete with that. It's possible they could make it shit enough that a large number of projects will say "screw this we'll just pay for CI", but people really like free (and easy!) things so I think we are a long way from that point.
"Nobody else can compete with that"
My laptop is on all the time, make a WASM slave and thousands of developers can give their CPU/Memory/Disk for build slaves.
Like bitcoin mining, there could be some competition between 3 parallel builds to pick the winner if the output is the same.
Re: Before GitHub
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Codeberg?
The problem is GitHub spends on the order of $100m/year on providing free CI. Nobody else can compete with that. It's possible they could make it shit enough that a large number of projects will say "screw this we'll just pay for CI", but people really like free (and easy!) things so I think we are a long way from that point.
And yet, GitHub Actions are notoriously broken, and serious customers are self-hosting their runners.
Codeberg does have some free CI runners, although I’m not sure what capacity they currently have, and how well it would work out if everybody decides to switch from GitHub today. They do encourage you to pick the smallest runner that works for you, and keep the workflows lean: https://codeberg.org/actions/meta
Or you can self-host your own runners too, of course.
Edit: there’s one caveat – Forgejo Actions are Linux only. If you need Windows or macOS runners, this won’t work for you. But... you could have a readonly GitHub mirror (which you should probably do if you want people to discover your project), and use the GitHub Actions runners for free :-)
Re: Before GitHub
#154I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…
When I tried Fossil it had things weirdly separated. I was expecting when I make a commit, I would have the facility to specify what issues it addressed and it would close them for me automatically. It seemed there is so much opportunity there to "close the loop" when the issue tracker, etc and integrated in your VCS, but it wasn't taken.
I wanted to host our company wiki in Fossil, but there is no way to import it because Fossil completely separates versioned project docs and the built-in Wiki function. Our git-based wiki could be imported into Fossil as "docs" but would not receive the nice formatting, GUI editor or dedicated page that the Wiki function does. There is also no benefit to manually converting it all to Fossil Wiki as some of our wiki editors work on raw markdown.md files and commit changes by git which is not possible with the Fossil Wiki; everyone would be forced to use the online editor only, whereas currently we have a choice of markdown or Gitea's editor.
Re: Before GitHub
#155I'm working pretty hard on building what comes after Github, but I'm going full-tilt boogie and trying to also work out what comes after Git. I'd love to have a longer conversation with you about how we can seed a better system, because on the off chance I'm successful I have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix past mistakes.
Your username is con artist lol
Yours is an anagram of “emits wrong beers”.
Just as relevant a point…
Re: Before GitHub
#156An important part to me that gets overlooked is shared logins. Rust runs the tests of all known Rust projects in a tool called `crater`. I was analyzing a run identifying projects relying on internals of Cargo and opening issues. When making 200 issues by hand, it is a big help when the process is low friction: I had credentials for the site and allowing blank templates. Any time I came across a self-hosted instance,…
This is something federation could help with: you would be able to use your account on, say, Codeberg to make issues on all self-hosted instances. Sadly, it’s still not in a great shape: https://forgefed.org/
(As a fallback, why not email the maintainers instead?)
Re: Before GitHub
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should continue with a name which is related to fossils, fossillab.io, boneyard.dev and so on…
fossilised.dev .. maybe british spelling. palaeontology.dev ... too awkward. museum.dev has a sort of "this is dead" ring to it. Ironically what fossils are stored in within a museum is referred to as a "repository".. Well, there's only 2 hard problems in computer science right?
The best know hosted Fossil service is https://chiselapp.com/
Re: Before GitHub
#158What is GitHub’s decline? I’ve used it extensively since 2011 ish (to lazy to look up when) it’s only gotten better. What’s the issue?
[dead]
Re: Before GitHub
#159I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…
Funny timing — I've been working on a hosted Fossil service to scratch this exact itch. The integrated wiki+forum+tickets+code is killer for small teams, but most people who'd pick Fossil don't actually want to babysit a server. So we host it. Two things I keep coming back to: (1) The "opinionated / small-teams only" critique others have raised in this thread is real, and I think Fossil should own it instead of fight…
Fossil is very easy to self host. If you already have a web server it needs maybe 10 or 15 lines of server config. If you want to avoid start up you need something to autostart/restart the server process. If you point it at a directory you can add a new repo simply by adding a Fossil file to the directory.
You can even run it on shared hosting as a CGI (never done it myself).
The only thing that took some setup was sending email notifications.
> The "opinionated / small-teams only" critique others have raised in this thread is real, and I think Fossil should own it instead of fighting it.
I agree I use Fossil for multiple personal and small projects. Anywhere I can, really. It is very simple and everything is distributed.
Re: Before GitHub
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> exposing You’re not exposing any new ideas. You’re just attacking.
Not attacking any individual at least. Attacking in the sense of being critical of individualism as a louded ideology, and connecting technical artifacts to some form of individualism and likely outcome, yes definitely.
There is no need to pretend for novelty in such a critic, indeed. Just because we don't reinvent it on the fly doesn't make the use of arithmetic worthless.