7 ms·

my favourites are sourcehut (that has excellent ci, and does not try to be a github clone) and codeberg (with slightly more straightforward migration path from

my favourites are sourcehut (that has excellent ci, and does not try to be a github clone) and codeberg (with slightly more straightforward migration path from github) [0] sr.ht [1] codeberg.org

petcat 1mo ago
Does sourcehut still require patches via email instead of "pull requests"? That was the deal breaker for me last time I looked at it.
- enriquto 1mo ago
  > Does sourcehut still require patches via email I'd guess the technically correct answer to this question is "yes". But sourcehut has very good mailing list support, that is essentially equivalent to github pull requests. Still, I find the wording of your question a bit prejudiced... as if I asked "does github still require pull requests via a proprietary interface instead of just sending the patches?"
  - 1f60c 1mo ago
    The specific wording sounded a bit judgy to me as well, but I think it's a totally reasonable question. They're just asking about the capability of a product.
  - Aeolun 1mo ago
    It is prejudiced. If you like sending patches over email more power to you, but there’s a reason 99% of the world’s devs does not follow that workflow.
    - internetter 1mo ago
      > but there’s a reason 99% of the world’s devs does not follow that workflow. Is there?
      - tancop 1mo ago
        Email was always designed for human to human messages. Patch files need strict formatting (like anything that needs to be machine readable). That means you need to install extra tools, point them at your mail server, configure the mailing list address and proper formatting for each project, then find the right commit range and type in the description into a command line editor every time you send a patch series. The alternative is doing everything manually and that takes even more effort. Compare that with GitHub where the workflow is push changes to fork, select branch, click to create a PR, write the description in a convenient web form and submit. Less friction and less opportunities to mess up. The solution to a centralized forge is a decentralzied forge, not no forge.
        palata 1mo ago
        Feels like you make the email workflow sound more complicated than it is on purpose. One could do that with the PR workflow as well. The email workflow has features that GitHub doesn't have. Most people do without them and don't really feel a need to learn about them, and that's fine. But would Linux be better off with GitHub? Not sure.
  - mkesper 1mo ago
    Come on, there were people using Gerrit instances (which had better PR UI than GH implementation) for good reasons even before GitHub became popular.
BrunoBernardino 1mo ago
I'm a happy paying customer of both, have been for a while. I use SourceHut for private repos, Codeberg for GH mirrors.

my favourites are sourcehut (that has excellent ci, and does not try to be a github clone) and codeberg (with slightly more straightforward migration path from github) [0] sr.ht [1] codeberg.org

petcat 1mo ago

Does sourcehut still require patches via email instead of "pull requests"? That was the deal breaker for me last time I looked at it.

enriquto 1mo ago
> Does sourcehut still require patches via email I'd guess the technically correct answer to this question is "yes". But sourcehut has very good mailing list support, that is essentially equivalent to github pull requests. Still, I find the wording of your question a bit prejudiced... as if I asked "does github still require pull requests via a proprietary interface instead of just sending the patches?"
- 1f60c 1mo ago
  The specific wording sounded a bit judgy to me as well, but I think it's a totally reasonable question. They're just asking about the capability of a product.
- Aeolun 1mo ago
  It is prejudiced. If you like sending patches over email more power to you, but there’s a reason 99% of the world’s devs does not follow that workflow.
  - internetter 1mo ago
    > but there’s a reason 99% of the world’s devs does not follow that workflow. Is there?
    - tancop 1mo ago
      Email was always designed for human to human messages. Patch files need strict formatting (like anything that needs to be machine readable). That means you need to install extra tools, point them at your mail server, configure the mailing list address and proper formatting for each project, then find the right commit range and type in the description into a command line editor every time you send a patch series. The alternative is doing everything manually and that takes even more effort. Compare that with GitHub where the workflow is push changes to fork, select branch, click to create a PR, write the description in a convenient web form and submit. Less friction and less opportunities to mess up. The solution to a centralized forge is a decentralzied forge, not no forge.
      - palata 1mo ago
        Feels like you make the email workflow sound more complicated than it is on purpose. One could do that with the PR workflow as well. The email workflow has features that GitHub doesn't have. Most people do without them and don't really feel a need to learn about them, and that's fine. But would Linux be better off with GitHub? Not sure.
- mkesper 1mo ago
  Come on, there were people using Gerrit instances (which had better PR UI than GH implementation) for good reasons even before GitHub became popular.

BrunoBernardino 1mo ago

I'm a happy paying customer of both, have been for a while. I use SourceHut for private repos, Codeberg for GH mirrors.