- cross-posted to:
- programming@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programming@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
Can you use git without a forge? Sure. As long as you don’t give a hoot about the entry barrier. But for any open source project were you want to encourage contribution you better have a nice presence on a forge.
Even just being able to view the source code without cloning is very valuable. A bare repo does not provide that.
i feel like this just keeps happening in the open source space, people go “Oh this is bloat, get rid of the bloat” and ardently insist that actually it’s better to use a bare TTY, despite that just… obviously being hilariously dumb?
Why use Git at all then? I thought the one reason why everyone wants to use Git these days are the forges.
Did you read the article? The author shares their perspective.
For me, Git is quite powerful on its own with version control, diffs, branches, merging, etc. Forges just add a UI for some of these things, and add an issue tracker/ discussion/etc. Forges also add a more modem ui for repo access though git does have its own webserver you can use. I use git without a forge for a number of my personal projects that I’m not sharing with others or not yet sharing
Git is quite powerful on its own with version control, diffs, branches, merging, etc.
All version control systems do that, hence my question.
Git was conceived as a bazaar (because of its use for the Linux kernel), but most projects are more like cathedrals. In my opinion, Git is simply over-engineered for most projects. For projects that you don’t want to share with others, even CVS would probably suffice…
Well just speaking for myself, i use git without a forge for personal stuff because i was already familiar with git and it fits my needs. No need to learn another version control system for some basic projects i throw together
I agree, but subversion is awesome!
It sure is! Glad I’m not alone. :-)
To track changes to a project. You know, the thing Git has been made for.
There is a difference between “not using a VCS” and “using Git”.
Ha! No.
distributed, asynchronous collaboration and versioning.
Or do you wanna send zipped up sourcefiles “project_dev_0.9.6.2_developername_featureID.zip” per email to a dozen colleagues who then have to manually merge it into their current WIP?
There is a difference between “not using a VCS” and “using Git”.
Let me make it clear to you then.
Why use Git at all then?
For it’s VCS features.
I thought the one reason why everyone wants to use Git these days are the forges.
You thought wrong. Git is not wanted exclusively for the forges, but also for it’s VCS capabilities.
Which VCS capabilities make Git stand out in comparison to all other DVCSs if you don’t need a web UI?
Personally:
I am used to git. When I don’t need the webUI, I would stick with git because it is already familiar to me.
Makes sense.
Pretty dumb not to use a forge. Adds a huge barrier to contribution for little benefit. None of the reasons he gives make sense.
Maybe a good option for projects that you don’t want anyone else to contribute to, but then why make them open source in the first place?
Not using GitHub because it’s proprietary is an especially illogical stance. Virtually all websites are proprietary.
Maybe a good option for projects that you don’t want anyone else to contribute to, but then why make them open source in the first place?
Because, at least to some people, open source is more about user freedom (to modify the software and share the modifications with anyone they wish) and less about collaboration.
For example every time I publish some simple utility that I wrote for myself and decided could be useful for other people, I release it under a reasonable open source license and pretty much forget about it - I’m not going to be accepting merge requests, I don’t have time to maintain random tiny projects. If I ever need to use the utility for something it doesn’t quite do, I’ll check if any of the forks seem to have implemented it. If not, I’ll just implement it in my repo.
The reason I’m publishing the code is because I know how much it sucks when you find some proprietary freeware utility that almost does what you need, but you can’t fix it for your usecase on account of it being proprietary for no reason (well, author’s choice is the reason, and I respect it, but it’s still annoying)
That’s a fair point. I don’t think that’s the case here because he talks about all the bad ways he prefers to receive contributions (email, patch files, git bundle etc.).
Appreciate the KISS perspective.
For me, the project management features of a forge are extremely helpful. Setting milestones, assigning issues to them, defining timelines and regularly reiterating the planning has proven to accelerate our work as a team significantly. This experience refers to huge code bases (climate models) and medium to large team sizes, though. And probably also my bad memory 😵💫
I suppose it’s always good, though, to evaluate how much management a code will actually need in the end, and what tools correspond to that need.
To anyone saying it’s dumb not to use a forge, have you heard of a little open source project called Linux ? It does not use a forge either
Funny how this shows up as cross-posted to the same community when there’s been a post about it two months ago.
It shouldn’t be labeled "cross-"post, but the linking to earlier discussion is certainly valuable and useful.
I remembered this post.
I had been thinking of self-hosting my little repos and realised GitLab was too heavy for my taste.
Just needed a code browser.
A forum alongside with connections to the repo would be good, but again, gets heavy.
A self-hosted sourcehut instance might be what you are looking for.
All features work without JavaScript
That’s great
