This is very opinionated. Jira is a massive mess that can be strangled into doing practically anything. Projects are clear enough for small organisations and teams. This isn't obvious to me. Who's...
Their two major non-enterprise ships in the past five years have been: Projects (2022), which I would describe as a solid iterative improvement on GitHub Issues that is still strictly worse than Linear and Jira
This is very opinionated. Jira is a massive mess that can be strangled into doing practically anything. Projects are clear enough for small organisations and teams.
I’m not well equipped to prognosticate here: all I know is that this is not the tool of the future, and whoever replaces GitHub will have a narrative arc of incumbency displacement that will feel obvious and trite in retrospect.
This isn't obvious to me. Who's to say whether there will be a better tool or interface? Many unix utilities have been fundamentally unchanged for decades because They Just Work™ which keeps users happy. There are already plenty of different tools and interfaces for version control.
Even projects that are technically done get reimplemented in rust, for example. But comparing something like cp with GitHub doesn't really work. One is maintained by the community for the...
Many unix utilities have been fundamentally unchanged for decades because They Just Work™ which keeps users happy.
Even projects that are technically done get reimplemented in rust, for example.
But comparing something like cp with GitHub doesn't really work. One is maintained by the community for the community and the other is maintained by a business worth hundreds of billions for profit. I don't have anything to back this up, but I feel like large corporations can never stop iterating and adding/removing features.
Almost like we shouldn't centralize our infrastructure on for-profit corporations.
One is maintained by the community for the community and the other is maintained by a business worth hundreds of billions for profit. I don't have anything to back this up, but I feel like large corporations can never stop iterating and adding/removing features.
Almost like we shouldn't centralize our infrastructure on for-profit corporations.
It's not exclusively a for-profit incentive. Governments are subject to the same pressures. Organizations want to prove they're useful, so they'll create busy work for themselves.
It's not exclusively a for-profit incentive. Governments are subject to the same pressures. Organizations want to prove they're useful, so they'll create busy work for themselves.
The community has no significant incentive to change things just to change them. People within corporations have to have something to show for all their work, and "I made sure the thing that...
The community has no significant incentive to change things just to change them. People within corporations have to have something to show for all their work, and "I made sure the thing that worked last year kept working without any fuss." doesn't get anyone a raise.
This is a point I think about from time to time, but one more step removed: What about git/the VCS itself? Git was obviously a major step up from what was there before with CVS/SVN, but it can...
Who's to say whether there will be a better tool or interface?
This is a point I think about from time to time, but one more step removed: What about git/the VCS itself?
Git was obviously a major step up from what was there before with CVS/SVN, but it can sometimes feel like it was primarily written for use with code in the Linux kernel, that is to say, a project with a very different style of shipping software than a modern team may require.
With jj, which I haven’t personally used yet but everyone who has gotten into it seems to love, we see what that alternative might look like—although even this still is backward-compatible to “standard” git. But probably not by choice, rather to facilitate growth and ease adoption.
And as for GitHub competitors cropping up, it’s definitely already happening. Here’s another example based on improving code review in addition to the more FOSS-based full GitHub alternatives already mentioned in the thread. They currently layer on top of GitHub IIRC, but their eventual endgame would probably be building a full (compatible-swappable?) platform underneath.
The author talks about two things. Core functionality and innovation. As far as core functionality goes, there are already good alternatives out there ranching from established (gitlab) to newer...
The author talks about two things. Core functionality and innovation. As far as core functionality goes, there are already good alternatives out there ranching from established (gitlab) to newer alternatives like Forgejo (which is used by code berg). Both offer a very solid core experience, Forgejo even more so as it actually focusses on the core.
As far as innovation goes, if it looks like that psychedelic trip of a landing page Pierre has, I'll have to pass. I think part of the issue with Github is "innovation". Which has led from it being a very solid git forge with good core functionality to a bloated monstrosity. One with too many POs trying to cram in more functionality just to have their teams meet certain innovation metrics.
When it comes to core functionality, I feel like people forget about more primitive options. Both cgit and git web are more than reasonable for solo devs who just need a remote repository...
When it comes to core functionality, I feel like people forget about more primitive options. Both cgit and git web are more than reasonable for solo devs who just need a remote repository (technically just git with no web interface is fine, but that's a whole new level of simplification). I fall into the category of people who don't need a git forge, just a git host. I used Sourcehut for a long time, but I started having access issues (I couldn't pull changes from digitalocean droplets for some reason) so I set up extra remotes with GitLab. Now GitLab feels way over-featured for what I need, and most of the features recommended by other solutions feel the same to me.
I know that many teams and organizations actually use the CI/CD offerings and everything else that goes with them, but I do miss seeing less heavyweight options come up. Maybe it's because basic git servers are a "solved" problem, but I do find it interesting that every few years a new forge pops up that mostly forks an existing one for philosophical reasons (Forgejo is a fork of Gitea, which is a fork of Gogs) while I don't see the same happening with cgit, git web, and similar options.
I have a little VM running gitea in my basement as basically just a web UI on git for personal mucking around. It's been a few years since I did anything with it other than use it and it's about...
I have a little VM running gitea in my basement as basically just a web UI on git for personal mucking around. It's been a few years since I did anything with it other than use it and it's about to be time to update it. You sound like you're in the know - I hadn't heard of Forgejo, is that the one the community has moved to now? When I first set this up it was gogs, seems like a trend line now if every 2-3 major Debian releases I redo the very stale VM with whatever gogs derivative is now standard.
I think Forgejo is the newest, but I don't know what's the standard. It split from Gitea on philosophical grounds, and I haven't done enough research to know if there's any feature differences....
I think Forgejo is the newest, but I don't know what's the standard. It split from Gitea on philosophical grounds, and I haven't done enough research to know if there's any feature differences. From what I know, Gogs, Gitea, and Forgejo are all still usable.
Hi @Banazir would you kindly clarify what the difference(s) might be here? I genuinely did not these were different things...and really wish to learn. I have not done professional dev work in...
I fall into the category of people who don't need a git forge, just a git host.
Hi @Banazir would you kindly clarify what the difference(s) might be here? I genuinely did not these were different things...and really wish to learn.
I have not done professional dev work in about 19 years, but do the odd little script for myself. So, yeah i have a github account with tiny repos...and it only exists for convenience...But would prefer to use something else (for philosophical reasons)...but alternatives often felt a bit much - again, just for little old me and my tiny scripts.
So...if there's some info you could share about git forge vs git host (or even directions that i could research myself), please share; and thanks! :-)
As far as I understand it (mainly from seeing what features get emphasized when people talk about forges), a git forge is a git host that also allows for issue tracking and discussion, repository...
As far as I understand it (mainly from seeing what features get emphasized when people talk about forges), a git forge is a git host that also allows for issue tracking and discussion, repository forking, build automation, and several other advanced features that aren't provided by git itself. A simple git host is just a location to store repositories, sometimes with a front-end to view the file tree but not always.
Most major git hosts (Github, Gitlab, Bitbucket, Codeberg, Sourcehut, etc) are git forges. They offer more than just your basic push, pull, branch, clone, etc that are part of git, but also software test and build automation so you can push releases more easily. Note that the way most people fork a repository is not a git feature, but a Github-ism. Traditional forks are just branches in the same tree, but Github (and now many other options) hide that behind creating a whole new repository under your control.
TL;DR: all git forges are git hosts, but not all git hosts are forges. If it offers more features that just what comes with git, especially automation, it's probably a forge. Remember: a git host can be as simple as a server with SSH access and git installed.
I am honestly not sure why you would. It is a YC funded startup so it will most likely go down the route of enshitification at some point. The fact that their landing page is just... well......
I do not like their website but I am trying to overcome my initial reaction.
I am honestly not sure why you would. It is a YC funded startup so it will most likely go down the route of enshitification at some point. The fact that their landing page is just... well... special and not at all indicative of what the product is makes it an even worse sell.
holy cow their website is awful. i’m surprised by the presentation (negatively). if you didn’t already know what the website was for, there’s no way of understanding just from the landing page.
holy cow their website is awful. i’m surprised by the presentation (negatively). if you didn’t already know what the website was for, there’s no way of understanding just from the landing page.
I made it as far as Okie doke, turning back. I mean I didn't think GitHub is flawless, but I use the parts of it I care about and spend very little time thinking about it. I definitely don't want...
I made it as far as
The following experience may result in permanent eyesight and/or eye color abnormalities. If you think modern code review is fine as is, turn back.
Okie doke, turning back. I mean I didn't think GitHub is flawless, but I use the parts of it I care about and spend very little time thinking about it. I definitely don't want to get involved in a project that is trying to get my attention. I want my tools to be quiet and reliable.
Having said all of that, it's just their landing page. I'm sure it'll be replaced within a year, because they just be hearing this feedback everywhere they go.
The docs site is much better and more informative.
Are the menu items redacted everywhere, or is that a special mobile feature? An unsearchable name like that will do not well, it didn't even come up on my first page of results. Chef and Salt also...
Are the menu items redacted everywhere, or is that a special mobile feature?
An unsearchable name like that will do not well, it didn't even come up on my first page of results. Chef and Salt also have this issue. I don't think Go would have caught on like it did if it weren't driven by Google.
What's with the spate of "reactions" in any communications or messaging software? I see it in Outlook now, and my coworkers "react" to some of my emails and I don't know how to process that. I...
What's with the spate of "reactions" in any communications or messaging software? I see it in Outlook now, and my coworkers "react" to some of my emails and I don't know how to process that. I kind of hate it.
It is like turning a tool for serious communication into a social media website.
Clicking “thumbs up” is probably more convenient than “Hi, thank you for the info, got it. Best regards” – but I agree that anything other than the ok/not ok thumbs can become a bit silly quickly.
Clicking “thumbs up” is probably more convenient than “Hi, thank you for the info, got it. Best regards” – but I agree that anything other than the ok/not ok thumbs can become a bit silly quickly.
I loved their site! Totally crazy and no actual information at all, would be amazing as an digital art project, but not so much as the first impression to sell anything (specially to devs, who...
I loved their site! Totally crazy and no actual information at all, would be amazing as an digital art project, but not so much as the first impression to sell anything (specially to devs, who normally hate this kind of psychedelics).
I've personally been following GitButler. Pierre is a massive turn off, because their site tells you nothing about the product. They're having fun with their framework, I guess. I haven't looked...
I've personally been following GitButler. Pierre is a massive turn off, because their site tells you nothing about the product. They're having fun with their framework, I guess. I haven't looked into Linear. The blog post is so incredibly full of itself. I don't think you can say "whatever follows Github will feel so natural we'll wonder how we didn't think of it sooner" with your head any further up your own rear.
But here I am wishing my company could at least get off Attlassian and move to something like Github or Gitlab, let alone a tool like GitButler.
This is very opinionated. Jira is a massive mess that can be strangled into doing practically anything. Projects are clear enough for small organisations and teams.
This isn't obvious to me. Who's to say whether there will be a better tool or interface? Many unix utilities have been fundamentally unchanged for decades because They Just Work™ which keeps users happy. There are already plenty of different tools and interfaces for version control.
Even projects that are technically done get reimplemented in rust, for example.
But comparing something like
cpwith GitHub doesn't really work. One is maintained by the community for the community and the other is maintained by a business worth hundreds of billions for profit. I don't have anything to back this up, but I feel like large corporations can never stop iterating and adding/removing features.Almost like we shouldn't centralize our infrastructure on for-profit corporations.
It's not exclusively a for-profit incentive. Governments are subject to the same pressures. Organizations want to prove they're useful, so they'll create busy work for themselves.
The community has no significant incentive to change things just to change them. People within corporations have to have something to show for all their work, and "I made sure the thing that worked last year kept working without any fuss." doesn't get anyone a raise.
This is a point I think about from time to time, but one more step removed: What about git/the VCS itself?
Git was obviously a major step up from what was there before with CVS/SVN, but it can sometimes feel like it was primarily written for use with code in the Linux kernel, that is to say, a project with a very different style of shipping software than a modern team may require.
With jj, which I haven’t personally used yet but everyone who has gotten into it seems to love, we see what that alternative might look like—although even this still is backward-compatible to “standard” git. But probably not by choice, rather to facilitate growth and ease adoption.
And as for GitHub competitors cropping up, it’s definitely already happening. Here’s another example based on improving code review in addition to the more FOSS-based full GitHub alternatives already mentioned in the thread. They currently layer on top of GitHub IIRC, but their eventual endgame would probably be building a full (compatible-swappable?) platform underneath.
The author talks about two things. Core functionality and innovation. As far as core functionality goes, there are already good alternatives out there ranching from established (gitlab) to newer alternatives like Forgejo (which is used by code berg). Both offer a very solid core experience, Forgejo even more so as it actually focusses on the core.
As far as innovation goes, if it looks like that psychedelic trip of a landing page Pierre has, I'll have to pass. I think part of the issue with Github is "innovation". Which has led from it being a very solid git forge with good core functionality to a bloated monstrosity. One with too many POs trying to cram in more functionality just to have their teams meet certain innovation metrics.
When it comes to core functionality, I feel like people forget about more primitive options. Both cgit and git web are more than reasonable for solo devs who just need a remote repository (technically just git with no web interface is fine, but that's a whole new level of simplification). I fall into the category of people who don't need a git forge, just a git host. I used Sourcehut for a long time, but I started having access issues (I couldn't pull changes from digitalocean droplets for some reason) so I set up extra remotes with GitLab. Now GitLab feels way over-featured for what I need, and most of the features recommended by other solutions feel the same to me.
I know that many teams and organizations actually use the CI/CD offerings and everything else that goes with them, but I do miss seeing less heavyweight options come up. Maybe it's because basic git servers are a "solved" problem, but I do find it interesting that every few years a new forge pops up that mostly forks an existing one for philosophical reasons (Forgejo is a fork of Gitea, which is a fork of Gogs) while I don't see the same happening with cgit, git web, and similar options.
I have a little VM running gitea in my basement as basically just a web UI on git for personal mucking around. It's been a few years since I did anything with it other than use it and it's about to be time to update it. You sound like you're in the know - I hadn't heard of Forgejo, is that the one the community has moved to now? When I first set this up it was gogs, seems like a trend line now if every 2-3 major Debian releases I redo the very stale VM with whatever gogs derivative is now standard.
I think Forgejo is the newest, but I don't know what's the standard. It split from Gitea on philosophical grounds, and I haven't done enough research to know if there's any feature differences. From what I know, Gogs, Gitea, and Forgejo are all still usable.
Hi @Banazir would you kindly clarify what the difference(s) might be here? I genuinely did not these were different things...and really wish to learn.
I have not done professional dev work in about 19 years, but do the odd little script for myself. So, yeah i have a github account with tiny repos...and it only exists for convenience...But would prefer to use something else (for philosophical reasons)...but alternatives often felt a bit much - again, just for little old me and my tiny scripts.
So...if there's some info you could share about git forge vs git host (or even directions that i could research myself), please share; and thanks! :-)
As far as I understand it (mainly from seeing what features get emphasized when people talk about forges), a git forge is a git host that also allows for issue tracking and discussion, repository forking, build automation, and several other advanced features that aren't provided by git itself. A simple git host is just a location to store repositories, sometimes with a front-end to view the file tree but not always.
Most major git hosts (Github, Gitlab, Bitbucket, Codeberg, Sourcehut, etc) are git forges. They offer more than just your basic push, pull, branch, clone, etc that are part of git, but also software test and build automation so you can push releases more easily. Note that the way most people fork a repository is not a git feature, but a Github-ism. Traditional forks are just branches in the same tree, but Github (and now many other options) hide that behind creating a whole new repository under your control.
TL;DR: all git forges are git hosts, but not all git hosts are forges. If it offers more features that just what comes with git, especially automation, it's probably a forge. Remember: a git host can be as simple as a server with SSH access and git installed.
This really helped; thanks!
I also looked at the (software) forge entry on wikipedia...But prefer your explanation :-) Thanks so much again!!!
Has anyone used Pierre that can explain why I should be interested? I do not like their website but I am trying to overcome my initial reaction.
I am honestly not sure why you would. It is a YC funded startup so it will most likely go down the route of enshitification at some point. The fact that their landing page is just... well... special and not at all indicative of what the product is makes it an even worse sell.
It seems like people keep talking about it like it is a good thing, even though from looking at it I find it hard to believe.
holy cow their website is awful. i’m surprised by the presentation (negatively). if you didn’t already know what the website was for, there’s no way of understanding just from the landing page.
What even is it? I clicked the big + at the bottom of the monochrome page with the hidden links, and had to click away from the flashing colour page.
I made it as far as
Okie doke, turning back. I mean I didn't think GitHub is flawless, but I use the parts of it I care about and spend very little time thinking about it. I definitely don't want to get involved in a project that is trying to get my attention. I want my tools to be quiet and reliable.
Having said all of that, it's just their landing page. I'm sure it'll be replaced within a year, because they just be hearing this feedback everywhere they go.
The docs site is much better and more informative.
https://docs.pierre.co/getting-started
They should burn their homepage and redirect to the docs. It would be the best five minutes they spent all year.
Are the menu items redacted everywhere, or is that a special mobile feature?
An unsearchable name like that will do not well, it didn't even come up on my first page of results. Chef and Salt also have this issue. I don't think Go would have caught on like it did if it weren't driven by Google.
Edit: missed a word
Yeah, I actually had to search "Pierre git" to find it, and it took me to the docs.
The docs look fine, I guess? Not really sure that emojis are a missing killer feature for code reviews...
What's with the spate of "reactions" in any communications or messaging software? I see it in Outlook now, and my coworkers "react" to some of my emails and I don't know how to process that. I kind of hate it.
It is like turning a tool for serious communication into a social media website.
Clicking “thumbs up” is probably more convenient than “Hi, thank you for the info, got it. Best regards” – but I agree that anything other than the ok/not ok thumbs can become a bit silly quickly.
I loved their site! Totally crazy and no actual information at all, would be amazing as an digital art project, but not so much as the first impression to sell anything (specially to devs, who normally hate this kind of psychedelics).
I've personally been following GitButler. Pierre is a massive turn off, because their site tells you nothing about the product. They're having fun with their framework, I guess. I haven't looked into Linear. The blog post is so incredibly full of itself. I don't think you can say "whatever follows Github will feel so natural we'll wonder how we didn't think of it sooner" with your head any further up your own rear.
But here I am wishing my company could at least get off Attlassian and move to something like Github or Gitlab, let alone a tool like GitButler.