3 ms·

https://sr.ht https://sr.ht really good.

junon 4y ago
Really opinionated and ideological. Be sure it's what you really want before you commit. Drew writes great code but he's very philosophical about his projects.
- nickstinemates 4y ago
  > Really opinionated and ideological. Are you talking about the programmer who wrote the website? If so, OK, I guess. The technology itself is the opposite of opinionated or ideological. It's just git.
  - junon 4y ago
    Both. And yes, true, but issue management is entirely via email and mailing lists a la savannah et al. There's no real way to interact with things from the site aside from looking at them. This is a huge hindrance to many users who are not familiar with the more classic way of working. It is certainly NOT a drop-in replacement for GitHub in most cases.
  - kanonieer 4y ago
    > The technology itself is the opposite of opinionated or ideological. It's just git. I'm a paying customer because I really like the UI and the base git.sr.ht service. However, hosted Git today is much more than Git. And so my overall experience is similar to the parent, I find it opinionated and stubbornly ideological. I'm close to being fed up with the "my way or the highway approach" at every corner. Some examples off the top of my head: 1. I'm fine with sending patches via email, not every contributor is. So give me the option to accept pull requests. Instead, you'll be directed to tutorials teaching how to send patches. Needlessly increases the friction for a large portion of my peers. 2. I want to love build.sr.ht too. But, there's no Docker support. Instead you end up in discussions like "what did society do before Docker?". Give me the option to build some of my repos using my Dockerfile. Again, an ideological choice creating friction. 3. I want to use pages.sr.ht with Cloudflare. "Connections from CloudFlare’s reverse proxy are dropped." Why? "Do not help one private company expand its control over all internet traffic." OK. All these small restrictions and gotchas with the finger wagging tone amount up to a very oppressive experience for the user. At least, that's my experience.
    - tristan957 4y ago
      Regarding 2, you can always start Docker manually in your builds.sr.ht manifest, and do what you want from there. On 3, I agree with you. There is a lot of this sort of thinking within the product. I don't really see 1 as a huge barrier to entry. SourceHut does have a web UI however for generating a patchset.

Really opinionated and ideological. Be sure it's what you really want before you commit. Drew writes great code but he's very philosophical about his projects.

nickstinemates 4y ago
> Really opinionated and ideological. Are you talking about the programmer who wrote the website? If so, OK, I guess. The technology itself is the opposite of opinionated or ideological. It's just git.
- junon 4y ago
  Both. And yes, true, but issue management is entirely via email and mailing lists a la savannah et al. There's no real way to interact with things from the site aside from looking at them. This is a huge hindrance to many users who are not familiar with the more classic way of working. It is certainly NOT a drop-in replacement for GitHub in most cases.
- kanonieer 4y ago
  > The technology itself is the opposite of opinionated or ideological. It's just git. I'm a paying customer because I really like the UI and the base git.sr.ht service. However, hosted Git today is much more than Git. And so my overall experience is similar to the parent, I find it opinionated and stubbornly ideological. I'm close to being fed up with the "my way or the highway approach" at every corner. Some examples off the top of my head: 1. I'm fine with sending patches via email, not every contributor is. So give me the option to accept pull requests. Instead, you'll be directed to tutorials teaching how to send patches. Needlessly increases the friction for a large portion of my peers. 2. I want to love build.sr.ht too. But, there's no Docker support. Instead you end up in discussions like "what did society do before Docker?". Give me the option to build some of my repos using my Dockerfile. Again, an ideological choice creating friction. 3. I want to use pages.sr.ht with Cloudflare. "Connections from CloudFlare’s reverse proxy are dropped." Why? "Do not help one private company expand its control over all internet traffic." OK. All these small restrictions and gotchas with the finger wagging tone amount up to a very oppressive experience for the user. At least, that's my experience.
  - tristan957 4y ago
    Regarding 2, you can always start Docker manually in your builds.sr.ht manifest, and do what you want from there. On 3, I agree with you. There is a lot of this sort of thinking within the product. I don't really see 1 as a huge barrier to entry. SourceHut does have a web UI however for generating a patchset.