1. 22
  1. 10

    Alternatively, you can look into using https://sourcehut.org/ - which can be self hosted, or use a pre-hosted instance.

    Docs on it are available at https://man.sr.ht/dispatch.sr.ht/ and https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/

    I don’t use sourcehut myself - I’ve mostly left tech, but I do still care a lot about it, and I think increasingly that github/lab/etc are not healthy for it.

    1. 4

      Can you elaborate on why self-hosting Sourcehut is better for the ecosystem than self-hosting GitLab (which is free and libre)?

      1. 2

        GitLab is open core, relies heavily on complex web technologies and javascript, and is primarily based on it’s gitlab specific tooling flow.

        Sourcehut is fully open, extremely light on browser features (meaning you can better control your exposed surface to potentially risky tech), and relies on less specific tooling (for example, email and lists rather than internal comment tracking, PRs, etc).

        Additionally and most importantly, it’s just different. Variation in ideology, implementation, and direction are important and give users choice. I present it primarily as an alternative.

        1. 1

          Gitlab is an order of magnitude more complex than anything I have seen. It is the industry standard and seems to be claimed as a fundamental developer right to overcome the difficulty to grasp Git.

          Using gitlab means you do not need everyone to be a git veteran, but that you need at least one git guru and one gitlab guru (that can update it in case of CVE).

          Depends on your team I guess.

          By using a simpler git porcelain, you need as much git skills (more for handling git itself, less for adapting to sometimes surprising Gitlab decisiobs, such as unidirectional merges instead of merging branches against each other to flatten the tree), but less Gitlab skills.

          1. 1

            free and libre

            Sourcehut is also free and libre (AGPL). The hosted instance is charged only.

            1. 3

              Yes, I suppose I should have said “…which is also free and libre.”

        2. 3

          That’s cool, although I don’t really understand why GitHub is making product announcements about a feature most of us can’t use yet.

          1. 1

            Git hooks are simple to use too if you are self hosting git (which is extremely easy):


            project=$(basename "$PWD" .git)
            date=$(date +%s)
            mkdir -p "/var/build/$project"
            git clone "/var/git/$project" "/var/build/$project/$date"
            cd "/var/build/$project/$date"
            make test
            1. 1

              I don’t understand why it was not possible to use it as CI before that. Github actions just build and start containers on events, such as new commit (passing automatically generated access key for their API via env var). You could run tests in it and use status API to submit results.

              And how it’s done now, with CI/CD feature? You don’t have to use “status” API? You have to use some other API? They made prebuilt container images that do the same (submit statuses)?

              So many marketing about these “actions” and it’s so mysteriously described. Their docs are not very good.

              1. 1

                One more feature makes one more public announcement.