Are you guys fine with these new shenanigans from Github. I found a bug and wanted to check what has been the development on that, only to find out most of the discussion was hidden by github and requesting me to sign-in to view it.

It threw me straight back to when Microsoft acquired Github and the discussions around the future of opensource on a microsoft owned infrastructure, now microsoft is exploiting free work from the community to train its AI, and building walls around its product, are open source contributors fine with that ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] s1nistr4@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Honestly I don't think there's a truly good git hosting website right now.

GitLab works if you wanna get away from Micro$oft but the UI is all over the place. Every other alternative either has an infinitely worse UI or charges money to use

[–] liliumstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What about codeberg? It is free and forgejo is easy to use.

[–] eos@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 7 months ago

i <3 codeberg

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I've been enjoying Codeberg a lot lately.

[–] AVengefulAxolotl@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, Codeberg's UI is almost the same as github, its good tbh.

P.S. i came to the conclusion that codeberg/github UI is good, when i went to sourcehut. Holy crap, my mind couldnt comprehend what am i looking at. (Could be a skill issue tho)

[–] MichaelTen@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

And forgejo may go Fediverse ....

https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59

https://forgejo.org/2023-01-10-answering-forgejo-federation-questions/

https://forgefriends.org/blog/2023/06/21/2023-06-state-forge-federation/

https://forgefed.org/

[–] gianni@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

SourceHut is crap. I've found that just because something is open source it doesn't mean it's automatically good.

[–] ziby0405@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago

codeberg, sourcehut, git.gay, cgit...

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The biggest issue with gitlab is the web editor. They swapped out a really fast and light-feeling one for this frankenstein monster that looks like whatever the hell the barbies and kens writing powershell are using. It's so slow, and so ugly.

Everything else about gitlab, so far, has been great. From v9 to here, it's been easy to use and easy to upgrade; but we can debate the capricious worsening of the sidebar for something surprisingly worse each time .

[–] Vent@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Who even uses the web editor on any git website though? For anything besides micro fixes for projects I don't already have cloned, I find it easier to just update things locally and push.

Don't even get me started on github rendering tabs as EIGHT spaces.

[–] algernon@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

A lot of people do. Especially on GitHub, where you can just browse a random repository, find a file you want to change, hit the edit button, and edit it right there in the browser (it does the forking for you behind the scenes). For people unfamiliar with git, that's huge.

It's also a great boon when you don't want to clone the repo locally! For example, when I'm on a slow, metered connection, I have no desire to spend 10+ minutes (and half of my data cap) for a repo to clone, just so I can fix a typo. With the web editor, I can accomplish the same thing with very little network traffic, in about 1 minute.

While normally I prefer the comfort of my Emacs, there are situations where a workflow that happens entirely in the browser is simply more practical.

[–] mint_tamas@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

I went from a company that used github to one that uses gitlab. I thought it was going to be great and was excited for using a new thing. But it’s really clunky in comparison.