undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjefurii4y ago0 comments

Sourcehut is designed to operate the way Git itself operates, and the way the Linux kernel project uses it. In other words, the way it was designed to be used, not the "embrace, extend, extinguish" way that Github uses to insert itself into the process.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

meibo4y ago· 2 in thread

Or most git hosting solutions. Gitea and Gitlab do exactly the same thing, gitea even looks exactly like GitHub, works the same way, and can be hosted on pretty much any machine.

It might be GitHub that popularized this, but it made open source more accessible to a lot of people and a majority of developers clearly get something out of it.

jefuriiOP4y ago

I should have written more clearly: Github's pull-request workflow is regarded by some (obviously including myself) to be the "extend" part of an "embrace, extend, extinguish" play. In other words, 1) embrace Git, 2) extend it using a Github-only feature and encouraging an entire generation of developers to think that you can't use Git without pull-requests, 3) making it some sort of proprietary product.

IIRC Sourcehut was Drew's way to develop a Git hosting solution that integrated the Linux kernel project's workflow. The idea being that this is a completely open-source project that uses open standards, i.e. email, rather than proprietary things like pull-request.

He wrote a great article on the email-driven workflow: https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/02/Email-driven-git.html

You're right, though, Github has done a service to the open-source community, and nobody forces you to use pull-requests.

woojoo6664y ago

Pull-requests don't have to be proprietary. We just need a standard format. I'm not opposed to using email, but right now the UX/UI looks far too lacking. Perhaps Sourcehut could also release an email client specifically for viewing pull requests, but until then I think it will be difficult to adopt

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse