3 ms·

SourceHut is great and you'd hardly believe it was alpha software if it didn't make a point of telling you. With the exception of builds.sr.ht missing a feature

SourceHut is great and you'd hardly believe it was alpha software if it didn't make a point of telling you. With the exception of builds.sr.ht missing a feature or two and lists.sr.ht being confusing for newcomers, I would be completely happy if feature updates froze from this point and we were stuck with it as-is. GitHub and GitLab are good but they feel like they're trying to make development a "my-way-or-the-highway" type deal, SourceHut clearly decouples issue tracking from git hosting from discussion lists etc. and it's quite refreshing to not have a dozen barren tabs with every repo.

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
GitHub's Pull Requests feature is so friggin' deficient. I recently discovered that even if you capitulate and try to follow their shitty PR-oriented vision, if you create a repo by importing an existing one, there's no way using github.com to file a PR against the upstream using the import you just created! Same trees (minus the extra branch), but no way to get the site to let you file a PR, because github.com doesn't recognize that your repo is a fork. As if the three-copies approach weren't bad enough (the upstream repo I cloned from; my copy on my local disk containing my commits; and then the third, completely idiotic boondoggle that I'm forced to create in my account's namespace on GitHub to be able to file a PR—which, as stated, doesn't actually work), I had to create another (fourth!) copy by visiting the upstream and explicitly clicking the "fork", and then pushing to that, which magically unlocks the ability to let you specify this fourth copy as the source of the desired changes.
- cdcarter 5y ago
  Indeed, you have to make a fork using the GH UI. But then, you could just add that fork as the remote origin for your local copy, push your changes, and open up a PR?
  - pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
    "Just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there (and not sure what the point of the comment is, you're just restating the details of the original complaint? only with implied upward inflection like this?), but even when you "just" do those things, it doesn't get you a time machine or a refund for the energy you've already expended (read: wasted).

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago

GitHub's Pull Requests feature is so friggin' deficient. I recently discovered that even if you capitulate and try to follow their shitty PR-oriented vision, if you create a repo by importing an existing one, there's no way using github.com to file a PR against the upstream using the import you just created! Same trees (minus the extra branch), but no way to get the site to let you file a PR, because github.com doesn't recognize that your repo is a fork. As if the three-copies approach weren't bad enough (the upstream repo I cloned from; my copy on my local disk containing my commits; and then the third, completely idiotic boondoggle that I'm forced to create in my account's namespace on GitHub to be able to file a PR—which, as stated, doesn't actually work), I had to create another (fourth!) copy by visiting the upstream and explicitly clicking the "fork", and then pushing to that, which magically unlocks the ability to let you specify this fourth copy as the source of the desired changes.

cdcarter 5y ago
Indeed, you have to make a fork using the GH UI. But then, you could just add that fork as the remote origin for your local copy, push your changes, and open up a PR?
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  "Just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there (and not sure what the point of the comment is, you're just restating the details of the original complaint? only with implied upward inflection like this?), but even when you "just" do those things, it doesn't get you a time machine or a refund for the energy you've already expended (read: wasted).