4 ms·

SourceHut author here. Not sure what you're trying to say. The opposite is also true: using GitHub requires that your would-be contributors conform to the pull

SourceHut author here. Not sure what you're trying to say. The opposite is also true: using GitHub requires that your would-be contributors conform to the pull request workflow instead -- and many people prefer emails. If anyone is skeptical about the email workflow, here's a write-up from another skeptic: https://blog.brixit.nl/git-email-flow-versus-github-flow/ https://blog.brixit.nl/git-email-flow-versus-github-flow/

kixiQu 4y ago
What I am saying is that, both in what I've seen and what you've stated, SourceHut is emphatically not trying to be "Github but just without the gamification elements", so if that's what people are looking for, they probably want to look elsewhere.
- cxr 4y ago
  > "Github but just without the gamification elements" Where did this quote come from? You just made it up? You're obviously trying to offer a retort/rebuff of some argument. But whose? Which argument?
  - kixiQu 4y ago
    No, I am not trying to retort/rebuff, and this thread seems unexpectedly confrontational. The quotation paraphrases the context of the exchange, which I will again summarize in case it is not adequately clear in itself: There was a commenter that said that they don't like how GH has introduced gamification elements, id 33310374. Then there was a commenter that said that the first commenter should therefore use SourceHut, because it stands in opposition to gamification, id 33311082. This exchange positions SourceHut as "Github, but without gamification elements", which I am putting in quotes to indicate it is a single coherent concept. I am pointing out that SourceHut is not designed to be a Github-like, as with its opinionated design choices around PRs, and I quote Drew being pretty explicit about that.
    - cxr 4y ago
      > This exchange positions SourceHut as "Github, but without gamification elements" No, it doesn't, and it's dishonest to try to make that move—just as it is dishonest to manufacture quotes (that are, in this case, designed to provide the opportunity for that attempt). "Github but just without the gamification elements" does not appear anywhere outside of your own comments and is, in fact, much stronger than what was claimed in the original comment you responded to; the person to whom you responded and to whom you were being needlessly confrontational pointed to SourceHut as an option for people who dislike gamification and are looking for a provider that is just "a place to host and build code". There was no claim about the suitability of SourceHut for anyone who doesn't meet that description, let alone anyone who requires/seeks/prefers(/whatever) "Github, but without gamification elements". Please stop manufacturing quotes, and please stop defending their use by pleading that "[t]he quotation paraphrases". That word sequence alone is a dense contradiction. Making up false quotes is especially troublesome when they are freely mixed into discussions where a person has otherwise already previously made use of genuine quotes (such as the way you did when quoting the creator's remarks that "SourceHut is not GitHub/GitLab/Gitea[...]"). To do so is pernicious, and the entire practice is against HN's rules. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891418>
      - kixiQu 4y ago
        Thanks for letting me know about the quote rule! While "pernicious" is IMO overdramatized, avoiding that shorthand is a sensible-enough community practice for a venue where people often skim and get heated about things; I won't repeat it. I still think you're reading a lot into this thread that is not there, and ratcheting this up to the level of accusations of dishonesty is a pretty interesting/illuminating choice. However, I don't actually have a dog in the fight; consider all points ceded.
        cxr 4y ago
        Not interested in deflection, and not interested in passive aggressive quips like "is a pretty interesting/illuminating choice", either. > I still think you're reading a lot into this thread that is not there To reiterate the background for this discussion: a participant in this thread went a step further than what you're saying here and literally* wrote things in that weren't really there. * literally literally, not the other kind
- ddevault 4y ago
  Fair point. Codeberg.org is more GitHub-like and has fewer gamification elements, for what it's worth, but many platforms which aim, more or less, to be GitHub clones, often include these elements without much critical analysis.

kixiQu 4y ago

What I am saying is that, both in what I've seen and what you've stated, SourceHut is emphatically not trying to be "Github but just without the gamification elements", so if that's what people are looking for, they probably want to look elsewhere.

cxr 4y ago
> "Github but just without the gamification elements" Where did this quote come from? You just made it up? You're obviously trying to offer a retort/rebuff of some argument. But whose? Which argument?
- kixiQu 4y ago
  No, I am not trying to retort/rebuff, and this thread seems unexpectedly confrontational. The quotation paraphrases the context of the exchange, which I will again summarize in case it is not adequately clear in itself: There was a commenter that said that they don't like how GH has introduced gamification elements, id 33310374. Then there was a commenter that said that the first commenter should therefore use SourceHut, because it stands in opposition to gamification, id 33311082. This exchange positions SourceHut as "Github, but without gamification elements", which I am putting in quotes to indicate it is a single coherent concept. I am pointing out that SourceHut is not designed to be a Github-like, as with its opinionated design choices around PRs, and I quote Drew being pretty explicit about that.
  - cxr 4y ago
    > This exchange positions SourceHut as "Github, but without gamification elements" No, it doesn't, and it's dishonest to try to make that move—just as it is dishonest to manufacture quotes (that are, in this case, designed to provide the opportunity for that attempt). "Github but just without the gamification elements" does not appear anywhere outside of your own comments and is, in fact, much stronger than what was claimed in the original comment you responded to; the person to whom you responded and to whom you were being needlessly confrontational pointed to SourceHut as an option for people who dislike gamification and are looking for a provider that is just "a place to host and build code". There was no claim about the suitability of SourceHut for anyone who doesn't meet that description, let alone anyone who requires/seeks/prefers(/whatever) "Github, but without gamification elements". Please stop manufacturing quotes, and please stop defending their use by pleading that "[t]he quotation paraphrases". That word sequence alone is a dense contradiction. Making up false quotes is especially troublesome when they are freely mixed into discussions where a person has otherwise already previously made use of genuine quotes (such as the way you did when quoting the creator's remarks that "SourceHut is not GitHub/GitLab/Gitea[...]"). To do so is pernicious, and the entire practice is against HN's rules. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891418>
    - kixiQu 4y ago
      Thanks for letting me know about the quote rule! While "pernicious" is IMO overdramatized, avoiding that shorthand is a sensible-enough community practice for a venue where people often skim and get heated about things; I won't repeat it. I still think you're reading a lot into this thread that is not there, and ratcheting this up to the level of accusations of dishonesty is a pretty interesting/illuminating choice. However, I don't actually have a dog in the fight; consider all points ceded.
      - cxr 4y ago
        Not interested in deflection, and not interested in passive aggressive quips like "is a pretty interesting/illuminating choice", either. > I still think you're reading a lot into this thread that is not there To reiterate the background for this discussion: a participant in this thread went a step further than what you're saying here and literally* wrote things in that weren't really there. * literally literally, not the other kind
ddevault 4y ago
Fair point. Codeberg.org is more GitHub-like and has fewer gamification elements, for what it's worth, but many platforms which aim, more or less, to be GitHub clones, often include these elements without much critical analysis.