4 ms·

SourceHut offers an email-based workflow with a web application built on top of it. You can file tickets via email, but you can also file tickets on the web: h

SourceHut offers an email-based workflow with a web application built on top of it. You can file tickets via email, but you can also file tickets on the web: https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hare https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hare The same goes for patches. You can submit changes directly via email, but you can also use our web interface. We're also working on web-based tools for code review built on top of our mailing lists, which will provide a complete experience similar to GitHub's pull requests, but built on top of the decentralized, standardized protocol that git was designed for.

hunterb123 4y ago
Hello, kinda offtopic, but are there plans for ForgeFed / ActivityPub support? That really seems the best way to dethrone GitHub, as it's moat is mainly carved via a social network. The git repo is already decentralized, ForgeFed is a great way to integrate and decentralize the social part. In the future gitea, srht, and many other implementations could interact with each other's users.
- ddevault 4y ago
  No, not at this time. I don't think that ActivityPub is the correct way to address this issue -- some people treat it like a golden hammer. SourceHut is already federated: via email. Email is a standardized, federated protocol with thousands of implementations and a global fault-tolerant system already working in production for decades, and it's the approach git was designed to use. I think this is a better solution. You can already use SourceHut's tooling to contribute to projects like Linux, which don't use any forge software at all, thanks to this standardization.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    That's unfortunate. It's pretty difficult to run your own email server plus deal with the blacklisting. I see your points, but I also see a possibility to support both email and ActivityPub mediums. A lot of people want a dedicated interface, hence you having to make a web portal. I don't see why the web portal couldn't support ForgeFed in addition to email. Being able to bridge standalone gitea instances users with repos on your service would be a good step forward for federation.
    - ddevault 4y ago
      ForgeFed is just a protocol, just like email. The interfaces can be essentially identical. It's pretty difficult to host a fediverse server, too. I want to make SourceHut easier to self-host post-beta, including dealing with email bits, but I also don't think the dream of federation involves everyone running their own servers. One of the advantages of the federation model is that it strikes a balance between total centralization and total de-centralization in that it allows a talented sysadmin to provide services for a large number of users. There are more ways to federate than ActivityPub.
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        Exactly my point. You could support both ActivityPub and email as protocols. I believe even commits could contain either address as it's a similar format. As far as hosting difficulty goes, once Gitea supports ForgeFed, you'd be able to spin up your own instance as easy as running one program, and no worries about blacklisting. I agree not everyone needs their own server, which is where shines sr.ht over Gitea, but a community developing a product sometimes wishes to run their own servers for their users. Sure they could run an email server, and users could use that, but it seems roundabout and outdated. I agree there's more than one way to federate, but the goal is bridging everyone together. Those two aren't mutually exclusive if you support both protocols.
        ddevault 4y ago
        Sorry, but I think we have to agree to disagree.
        jefurii 4y ago
        It sounds like you want to volunteer to add ActivityPub to Sourcehut!
        hunterb123 4y ago
        Is the part that would allow this in sourcehut opensource & allowing contributions for this? From the sounds of things he does not want the feature.
- mariusor 4y ago
  I see Drew already weight in on this, but there were a number of debates between ActivityPub proponents (of which I am one, though not in the source forge space) and him regarding this, where he was very explicit that he's not interested. Over time I ended up coming more to his side, and I agree that SourceHut doesn't need any extra social interaction that ActivityPub might bring. That being said, the devs of Gitea are in the process of adding AP support, and it has been mentioned on HN already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31934758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31934758
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    I'm aware, part of my assertion was to bridge Gitea and Sourcehut projects together via AP, I go into detail in my other replies. I understand and support his decision, but I will be going with Gitea because I'd prefer AP networking over email. To each their own for sure, but my main suggestion was to support both so the communities aren't fragmented, that would be a bigger threat to Github's network effect. Oh well.
BeetleB 4y ago
Thanks Drew. I may have been mistaken, or perhaps you added those features after I tried them. I'll take another look.

hunterb123 4y ago

Hello, kinda offtopic, but are there plans for ForgeFed / ActivityPub support? That really seems the best way to dethrone GitHub, as it's moat is mainly carved via a social network. The git repo is already decentralized, ForgeFed is a great way to integrate and decentralize the social part. In the future gitea, srht, and many other implementations could interact with each other's users.

ddevault 4y ago
No, not at this time. I don't think that ActivityPub is the correct way to address this issue -- some people treat it like a golden hammer. SourceHut is already federated: via email. Email is a standardized, federated protocol with thousands of implementations and a global fault-tolerant system already working in production for decades, and it's the approach git was designed to use. I think this is a better solution. You can already use SourceHut's tooling to contribute to projects like Linux, which don't use any forge software at all, thanks to this standardization.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  That's unfortunate. It's pretty difficult to run your own email server plus deal with the blacklisting. I see your points, but I also see a possibility to support both email and ActivityPub mediums. A lot of people want a dedicated interface, hence you having to make a web portal. I don't see why the web portal couldn't support ForgeFed in addition to email. Being able to bridge standalone gitea instances users with repos on your service would be a good step forward for federation.
  - ddevault 4y ago
    ForgeFed is just a protocol, just like email. The interfaces can be essentially identical. It's pretty difficult to host a fediverse server, too. I want to make SourceHut easier to self-host post-beta, including dealing with email bits, but I also don't think the dream of federation involves everyone running their own servers. One of the advantages of the federation model is that it strikes a balance between total centralization and total de-centralization in that it allows a talented sysadmin to provide services for a large number of users. There are more ways to federate than ActivityPub.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      Exactly my point. You could support both ActivityPub and email as protocols. I believe even commits could contain either address as it's a similar format. As far as hosting difficulty goes, once Gitea supports ForgeFed, you'd be able to spin up your own instance as easy as running one program, and no worries about blacklisting. I agree not everyone needs their own server, which is where shines sr.ht over Gitea, but a community developing a product sometimes wishes to run their own servers for their users. Sure they could run an email server, and users could use that, but it seems roundabout and outdated. I agree there's more than one way to federate, but the goal is bridging everyone together. Those two aren't mutually exclusive if you support both protocols.
      - ddevault 4y ago
        Sorry, but I think we have to agree to disagree.
      - jefurii 4y ago
        It sounds like you want to volunteer to add ActivityPub to Sourcehut!
        hunterb123 4y ago
        Is the part that would allow this in sourcehut opensource & allowing contributions for this? From the sounds of things he does not want the feature.
mariusor 4y ago
I see Drew already weight in on this, but there were a number of debates between ActivityPub proponents (of which I am one, though not in the source forge space) and him regarding this, where he was very explicit that he's not interested. Over time I ended up coming more to his side, and I agree that SourceHut doesn't need any extra social interaction that ActivityPub might bring. That being said, the devs of Gitea are in the process of adding AP support, and it has been mentioned on HN already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31934758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31934758
- hunterb123 4y ago
  I'm aware, part of my assertion was to bridge Gitea and Sourcehut projects together via AP, I go into detail in my other replies. I understand and support his decision, but I will be going with Gitea because I'd prefer AP networking over email. To each their own for sure, but my main suggestion was to support both so the communities aren't fragmented, that would be a bigger threat to Github's network effect. Oh well.

BeetleB 4y ago

Thanks Drew. I may have been mistaken, or perhaps you added those features after I tried them. I'll take another look.