61–70 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even mind the separate component approach but I wish they would just have a single consistent navigation bar on all of them for switching between all the services for a project.
We will be adding this soon, it's an acknowledged priority for the beta.
I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles. Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little: I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples: - The login[0] and register[…
sr.ht lack ipv6 support to be viable option. I'd suggest considering codeberg or notabug instead.
As I read it, they are searching for a free service. AFAIK Sourcehut is only free currently because it is in alpha stage. So it will cost at least $20/year in the future. (Which is still way cheaper than GitLabs Premium plan, but still: it isn't "free") I don't think people think enough about that fact. Sourcehut is not a "free" alternative if you plan long term. I think something like codeberg.org would be a real "f…
I don't think you think enough about this fact. For a large open-source project, $20 a year is about as close as "free" as one can get.
As I read it, they are searching for a free service. AFAIK Sourcehut is only free currently because it is in alpha stage. So it will cost at least $20/year in the future. (Which is still way cheaper than GitLabs Premium plan, but still: it isn't "free") I don't think people think enough about that fact. Sourcehut is not a "free" alternative if you plan long term. I think something like codeberg.org would be a real "f…
>they are searching for a free service Free as in beer or as in freedom? In podcast they say that GL isn't entirely open source and they don't like that they're using some proprietary features of it.
(1) “After gitlab.com's recent changes to the free tier, we have been seriously reconsidering if gitlab.com is still the best development platform for postmarketOS.”
(2) “SourceHut is a great match for the postmarketOS principles: AGPL licensed, no Open-core model; ...”
As I read it, they are searching for a free service. AFAIK Sourcehut is only free currently because it is in alpha stage. So it will cost at least $20/year in the future. (Which is still way cheaper than GitLabs Premium plan, but still: it isn't "free") I don't think people think enough about that fact. Sourcehut is not a "free" alternative if you plan long term. I think something like codeberg.org would be a real "f…
>they are searching for a free service Free as in beer or as in freedom? In podcast they say that GL isn't entirely open source and they don't like that they're using some proprietary features of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the disconnect between sourcehut components isn't great, but AFAIK they are working on hub.sr.ht or smth like that, and also better integration between all of those services, precisely to fix that issue. I'm eager to see that implemented, because it will be a good step forward.
I don't even mind the separate component approach but I wish they would just have a single consistent navigation bar on all of them for switching between all the services for a project.
I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles. Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little: I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples: - The login[0] and register[…
strong agree, though with the caveat that it's "bad" for my tastes and priorities, but is clearly ok for other folks. it feels all too common for folks to rage against bloaty interfaces (i agree, they're terrible!) but swing wildly back towards clunky browser-default randomness. you can have a consistent, polished interface without javascript and tons of images! one thing w/ sourcehut that i find adds confusion is th…
I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles. Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little: I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples: - The login[0] and register[…
e.g.:
The current homepage has an odd out-of-place looking blue banner. This is largely down to uneven margins and paddings applied to the banner content - in particular vertical paddings aren't optically aligned with horizontal.
This same issue was once common through sourcehut's content but it's already clear how much that's improved looking at how much better the primary homepage content looks in contrast to the banner.
There's little tiny niggling issues like that everywhere - often related to vertical alignment not matching horizontal alignment - and while each is individually negligible, the cumulative affect is a bit jarring. But I still see it improving all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
strong agree, though with the caveat that it's "bad" for my tastes and priorities, but is clearly ok for other folks. it feels all too common for folks to rage against bloaty interfaces (i agree, they're terrible!) but swing wildly back towards clunky browser-default randomness. you can have a consistent, polished interface without javascript and tons of images! one thing w/ sourcehut that i find adds confusion is th…
The repository's description also changes for no apparent reason ("Photo management solution" vs "A web picture gallery").
A sourcehut project can have as many as them as there are required. Therefore the Source tab takes you to the main git/HG repo that you have added for your project.
That's also the reason why the descriptions are different, one is of the project, the other is of the repository.
It's only confusing if you dismiss everything that's not a clone of github without investing the little time it takes to learn about the differences.