3 ms·

Any good reason(s) why SourceHut and not Gitlab? SourceHut is missing a lot of features from GitHub, I'm not even sure if SourceHut has a file tree. It's inter

Any good reason(s) why SourceHut and not Gitlab? SourceHut is missing a lot of features from GitHub, I'm not even sure if SourceHut has a file tree. It's interface is also much different than GitHub's. Meanwhile GitLab is almost an exact clone of GitHub. It has discussion boards, pull requests ("merge requests"), even CI which replaces GitHub actions. I figure SourceHut is more FOSS-friendly than GitLab. But GitLab still supports self-hosting, and AFAIK is open-source and FOSS-freindly itself. The KDE and GNOME project even have their own hosted GitLab versions. All-in-all I just think migrating from GitHub to GitLab seems much easier than migrating to SourceHut.

michz 4y ago
Can't speak for others but I would choose sourcehut over gitlab any day; having used gitlab at work, it's a hot mess of JavaScript that tries to replace command line workflows that work-- it's terribly slow, and once even used 60GB of memory on my machine. On the other hand, sourcehut promotes better workflows, in favor of a really snappy web interface. For those who are attached to forks and PRs there's also a web UI for submitting a "patch set" which basically walks you through the process the same way as a pull request.