Hey,

so we have discussed changing from github away already. The result of these discussions is, to my knowledge:

  • github is the most popular way of people contributing to lemmy. So, alternative repos exist (gitlab and gitea) but they are not used much according to the devs.
  • gitea is interesting but the developers consider it a requirement to change that one can open or comment on an issue via activitypub, for instance via pleroma or mastodon (or even lemmy). Because otherweise we have the problem that one doesn’t want to open an account just to contribute to lemmy.
  • Github is still the only “development” place where one can submit bugs or talk about development. The only alternative for lemmy is this community here.
  • using github/gitlab is discouraging contributions for some users. source

Additional sources: 1 and 2

currently, there has been some work on making collaboration between git hosting services easier (also federating stuff):

  • activitypub federation is still very very far away for git repositories. I saw some work done in that area, but this work is not part of any git repository sharing thing like gitea. Also this work is abandoned, it seems source. gitea also has not made really progress in that regard.
  • gitlab has basic interaction via email, it seems, so you can create a merge request via git-send-email - at least according to this issue. I haven’t tried that yet. But i expect it to be a second citizen behind the UI thing. I expect you have to register and configure it to allow the creation of merge requests via mail. So that is better, but doesn’t help people like /u/dirtfindr, who doesn’t want to feed the unethical behavior of gitlab.
  • gitlab also an issue to collaborate with different git hosting services, like github and gitlab - and the federation between. But i don’t consider this much succesfull, as github won’t be interested in that. So they can abuse their monopoly to tighten their lock-in effect, by simply not allowing that. Gitlab issue

So i wonder if sourcehut.org would be a solution.

  • both tickets and patches can be created via mail, without trouble, without even being registered on some mailinglist. This works already very good and has the advantage that you don’t have to manage an account somewhere to collaborate. you simply can use email.
  • But you can also use the UI drew develops. So sourcehut has implemented things similar to github, where you can fork a repository, send your patches to this fork and create a merge request from this, via the UI. (As far as i understand, haven’t tried it yet).
  • You can also review patches via the UI, if you don’t like to review things via email. That looks similar to github pull request commenting. So above is the source code you comment on and below that a little interception with your comment.
  • also when your build makes problems, you can ssh into the build machine to observe the problem directly.
  • however, sourcehut has at the moment no CI for incoming patches. This is being worked on, but i don’t have an ETA. However, i think this will arrive this year, probably in the next months. So i’d when that arrives, sourcehut would be a very good replacement for github and gitlab.

so what do you think? /u/nutomic /u/dessalines /u/dirtfindr

I’d personally help in the transition of the issues (summarzing the github ones and closing the github ones in favor of the sourcehut tickets, one by one) and i’m sure some other peoples would also be interested in helping.

@humanetech
link
2
edit-2
6M

I prefer Codeberg myself (a Gitea instance hosted from Germany, exclusively for FOSS, where some Gitea team members are also actively involved). For some future projects I am thinking of making a split in the following way:

  • Code is hosted on Github, to benefit from its network effects. It is a pity, but until ForgeFed is broadly implemented or FedeProxy is available, being on GH will have most likelyhood for active contributors to share some work.
  • Team / Docs / Architecture / Site source are hosted on Codeberg. Are you interested enough to be more deeply involved in the project, then the friction of creating a Codeberg account is not all that large either.
Dessalines
mod
admin
link
51Y

I’ve never heard of sourcehut and I don’t know anyone who uses it. That sounds a lot more complicated than the github fork/PR style model that both gitea and gitlab reproduce, that most ppl are using. Although I’ll watch it grow with interest, seems like it has some neat ideas.

Again I really don’t want to transition to another issue tracking system right now, maybe in the future when a fully federated and fleshed out issue tracking system gets developed.

PRs are open on both github and gitea, although github has by far received the most PRs cause that’s where most developers still are.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
link
41Y

I think it’s a fairly new platform.

@fruechtchen
creator
link
1
edit-2
1Y

Again I really don’t want to transition to another issue tracking system right now, maybe in the future when a fully federated and fleshed out issue tracking system gets developed.

Thats the point i’m trying to make: i think federated issue tracking and such things will take a long time before finished. And because development via email has the same properties as federated issue tracking & pull requests, i think that is a interesting alternative for federated issue tracking and pull requests.

The same properties being no lock-in effect, no project-specific account required.

That sounds a lot more complicated than the github fork/PR style model that both gitea and gitlab reproduce, that most ppl are using.

After a few contributions via email to sourcehut repositories, i can say it is actually easier/faster. I think it is more complicated to create a fork on github, push to your fork and create the pull request - compared to just sending your commits as patches via email to some mailinglist.

From the receiving end, the current status is visually described here: https://aerc-mail.org/ - there is a video, where drew uses his mail client to accept and give feedback to patches.

It is just different, not really more complicated. And when the continous integration service works also for incoming patches on the mailinglist, i think it won’t be much different. People just have to learn about git-send-email and thats it. There’s even a great tutorial for that: https://git-send-email.io

although github has by far received the most PRs cause that’s where most developers still are.

I think thats because many people don’t mind using github, its just those are enthusiastic about other freedom-respecting platforms.

Like me: i have a github account, i use it to comment on issues and post pull requests. So i am on github, because many projects are still on github. Like neovim, lemmy, swaywm, neomutt, void-linux, etc. But that doesn’t mean i’m not enthusiastic about sourchut :)

And as we are in free software culture, i think many more people would be enthusiastic about using sourcehut more.

@fruechtchen
creator
link
1
edit-2
1Y

I’ve never heard of sourcehut and I don’t know anyone who uses it.

I think the reason is that sourcehut is lacking some features who people wait to have to switch.

  • the littr.me author waits for the organization-account feature (like LemmyNet on github) before he transitions his repos. but he has already his ticket system there, because he likes it better. source
  • https://emersion.fr/ (who also works on sourcehut) said, he also waits for features to finish before transitioning his stuff. but i forgot which ones exactly.
  • drew devault himself has still many github repos, for instance the quite popular sway window manager and the wlroots dependency.
  • i think the “discoverability” aspect mentioned here is now fixed by introducing the sourcehut hub: https://sr.ht/projects

so i think, sourcehut will gain a lot more users when those features are done. Especially when sourcehut is out of alpha and in beta or so.

Therefore, i’m also not really suggesting to switch now, i just want to talk about the requirements the new system has to fulfill before we can switch.

Dessalines
mod
admin
link
31Y

What’s this about? https://sourcehut.org/pricing/

Seems like they deny features to non-paying users.

@fruechtchen
creator
link
1
edit-2
1Y

to cite this article:

Payment is optional now but will be required later

When the beta begins, unpaid accounts will be limited. Affected users will be emailed 60 days in advance of the transition. Of course, userGroups can have members which are both paid and unpaid, but all group admins have to have paid accounts. Groups may sponsor the fees for their members, and sponsored members effectively become normal paid accounts with all the privileges that entails.s hosting their own instance of Sourcehut on their own servers are unaffected by this.

Additionally, unpaid accounts will still be able to contribute to projects on the platform, and in fact you can interact with many services via email without having an account at all. Payment will only be required to own resources, submit build jobs, and so on.

The reason to do that is to finance the development of sourcehut and the hosting costs. Blog post for details. Also, here is a blogpost about the backups and redundancy at sr.ht, and here is the current manpage for that.

also from your link:

You should pick the plan which best matches your financial needs and best represents the level of investment you have in sourcehut. If you require financial aid to use sourcehut, please send an email explaining your circumstances and we’ll do our best to accommodate your needs.

However, by being open source and free software, you will always be able to host your own version of sourcehut without any costs. here is the mailinglist for that.

And last but not least, to cite a few sections from the groups proposal:

Groups can have members which are both paid and unpaid, but all group admins have to have paid accounts. Groups may sponsor the fees for their members, and sponsored members effectively become normal paid accounts with all the privileges that entails. […] If you would like to host an organization on SourceHut, please tell me your current scale in terms of number of resources you’d need, and give me some idea of your budget. The goal is to balance the needs of small FOSS projects with the needs of businesses.

@fruechtchen
creator
link
1
edit-2
1Y

ah, and also:

Drew also contributes back to dependencies he uses on sourchut. example:

After 6 months of work, five patches across 3 different projects, and several thousand lines of code, I have finished adding custom backend support to pygit2, which unblocks a number of workstreams.

And Simon Ser, the other developer of sourcehut does the same. So paying sourcehut means paying people to work full-time on free software. Source for Simon Ser working on free software, which also includes and is financed by sourcehut

This is also a big thing why i like sourcehut some much more than github, gitlab or gitea. It is sustainable free software work, financed by many many small donations. Both developers of sourcehut do monthly status updates to be transparent about what they do:

Also, as far as i understand, sourcehut kind of donates things back to the community. see for example this blog post explaining how the sourcehut build system is used by many projects to improve the BSD support. And as far as i understand, this has happened without the need for costs for them.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
link
21Y

Dessalines won’t get a notification if you reply to my comment, unless you mention him.

/u/dessalines

@fruechtchen
creator
link
11Y

/u/AgreeableLandscape ah, thank you!

@fruechtchen
creator
link
0
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

@dirtfindr
link
11Y

I couldn’t find anything wrong with sourcehut. Registration was trivial & disposable email was accepted. I like the SSH support.

Support / questions about Lemmy.

  • 0 user online
  • 2 user / day
  • 2 user / week
  • 18 user / month
  • 70 user / 6 month
  • 491 subscriber
  • 300 Post
  • 1.6K Comment
  • Modlog