1. 43

  2. 23

    “It’s the world’s tiniest open source violin”


    1. 4

      So what’s the alternative to GitHub that we should be using?

      1. 14

        Phabricator. It’s used successfully by Wikimedia, LLVM, FreeBSD, Blender, and many more communities. A bot to help bridge would be great (e.g. submit a pull request on Github, the bot creates a Phabricator review and directs the submitter there).

        1. 1

          Side note: anyone using Phabricator know of a good Not Rocket Science testing system? I’m a little new to it still and am not sure how to make Revisions work how I want.

        2. 13

          Gitlab. Open-source, with a hosted option if that’s the service you need, but open-source so you can run it yourself, or pay someone else to, and contribute changes if you need them.

          1. 1

            I’ve run a small/mid-sized project on here for the past few months, and I’ve been quite happy with it. Does everything I need, except the primary gitlab.com instantiation does not allow commenting over email, though this can be enabled for private installs.

          2. 9

            IMO, BitBucket is superior to GitHub in every way except for CI/CD integration. Which I believe they are working on. It’s still possible to at least kick off jenkins jobs and what not but it’s a bit janky and there is no feedback yet. Otherwise, I find BitBucket to be very well done.

            EDIT: I’m responding to the above from a feature/quality perspective. Not based on the xkcd cartoon.

            1. 8

              Bitbucket recently got CI status integration. As an Atlassian employee I’ve seen some really cool Bitbucket and CI integration being used internally. I’m sure some of this slickness will be shown using public projects soon.

              1. 2

                you can’t even search in repositories in bitbucket online.

                why do you prefer it?

                i use both, and find bitbucket mostly worse in most web user experience: no searching, can’t see sources vs forks easily, dashboard shows repos and not activity of people you follow as primary thing (i use this on github a lot).

                1. 2

                  The two things you mention are two things I basically never use. Most of the repositories I interact with are ones I’m using locally and have in my various tooling already and most of the programming I do is in organizations where forks aren’t really useful at all. BitBucket has robust branch permissions which I make more use of.

                  The Pull Request system, which is my main use for any tool like this, is significantly superior to GitHub’s for my usecases. It has Reviewers, real Approve buttons, and Tasks, all of which I use a lot. I don’t really care about the social/activity aspect that GitHub is aiming for, I mostly care abotu a tool around development, which I find BitBucket does a lot better. I also have to use GHE at work which I find very aggravating to use.

              2. 7

                Set up your own server. Use a mailing list for reviews.

                1. 7

                  I used self hosted gogs for a bit, but ended up returning to github because I missed the social/community features. Sure, they technically exist on gogs too, but who’s going to sign up for my gogs instance just to say post an issue, or star/what/whatever it?

                  1. 2

                    One can use cgit and use email for reviews. No need to create an account. Although the barrier of entry may be a little bit higher as not many people use git format-patch/apply-patch, this is more an issue familiarity than something inherent to the process. I like it more than github’s pull requests as it is easier to go back and forth.

                    1. 1

                      For open-source projects with outside contributions/contributors, dead right. For my purposes though gogs is ideal. I’ve been using it for personal projects for a few months. Works well enough that I moved all my private repos from Github onto it and saved myself cash money. Fast, simple and regularly updated, often with nice new features that so far have all seemed pretty well-tested and working. For my v low-complexity requirements, natch. YMMV.

                      1. 2

                        If it’s for private repos, why not just have bare git repositories on an ssh server?

                        1. 1

                          Well, sure, in terms of raw git operations, no reason - but private repos can still have multiple contributors, and even single-contributor projects can benefit from organisational tools like the issue tracker, milestones, wiki for notes, etc. Mostly though I just like the UI, the graphical, easily-click-through-able display of a range of projects at a glance, and the visual diffs are simple and easy to get at. Sure, none of this is anything Github/Bitbucket/etc doesn’t do, but it does all the bits that I need and like, well enough for me, for free, on my server.

                    2. 3

                      I agree that there’s no shortage of OSS GitHub alternatives out there, and most of them work really well.

                      What kills me is the lack of a hosted free-software alternative to Google Groups. I have a couple projects on librelist.com, but it’s been down for almost a month now, and I haven’t gotten a response about what’s up. Hosting your own mailing list is really easy to screw up.

                      1. -4

                        Well you did not host your own mailing list.

                    3. 1

                      Kallithea, although it desperately needs a larger community of contributors to add features like pull requests and CI integration.

                      1. 1

                        I see no one has mentioned Launchpad yet. Launchpad supports git repositories now, and they’re improving it steadily. The Launchpad blog has info on their progress.

                        Keep in mind that I work for Canonical, who started Launchpad and who employ everyone I know of who works on Launchpad development (I’m not really up on who’s doing what, though). There are other organizations who use LP, e.g. Openstack.

                        My own opinions of LP are mixed. I like it, and I used it heavily for a couple of years, but eventually moved to git, and moved off to mostly use GitHub, back before LP added git support.

                        LP’s bug tracking is more featureful than github’s issues. There are lots of other features that may or may not be useful, such as PPAs, translation support, blueprints, etc etc.

                    4. 1

                      I’m surprised I havent yet found an alternative to github that isnt managed by a for profit corporation. Couldnt an open source or foss promoting organisation do the same thing but then funnel profits over to the foss projects they host?

                      1. 3

                        funnel profits over to the foss projects they host?

                        I highly doubt that it would even make enough money to keep the lights on. Let along give back.

                        1. 1

                          Perhaps, but it could also support hosting commercial open source projects.