Looks interesting, although the comments about other git repo services being bloated, complicated, and resource heavy, followed by a paragraph about AI features that have been added, with more planned in the future, seems a touch ironic to me.
My first thought is that it's just an AI training move
Isn't the whole point of these things the "bloated" (CI/CD, issue tracker, merge requests, mirroring, etc) part? Otherwise we'd all be using bare git repos over ssh (which works great btw!)
It's like complaining about IDE bloat while not using a text editor. Or complaining there's too many knives in a knife set instead of buying just the chef knife.
Actually, I do use git bare repos for CD too. :) The ROOT/hooks/post-update executable can be anything, which allows to go wild : on my laptop, a push to a bare repos triggers deploy to all the machines needing it (on local or remote networks), by pushing through ssh to other bare repos hosted there, which builds and installs locally, given they all have their own post-update scripts ; all of that thanks to a git push and scripts at the proper paths. I don't think any forge could do it more conveniently.
For me the main interest of forges is to publish my code and get it discovered (before GitHub, getting people to find your repos hosted on your blog's server was a nightmare). Even for the collaboration, I could do with emails. That being said, most people aren't on top of their inbox, in which mails from family are mixed with work mails and commercial spam in one giant pile of unread items, so it's a good thing for them we have those issue trackers.
I find that claim so dubious. Like they list running on the smallest VMs as a feature but give no specific requirements for hosting or running the service. This whole article reads like buzzword salad. I question if the creators even know what a git forge is.
Looks interesting, although the comments about other git repo services being bloated, complicated, and resource heavy, followed by a paragraph about AI features that have been added, with more planned in the future, seems a touch ironic to me.
My first thought is that it's just an AI training move
Isn't the whole point of these things the "bloated" (CI/CD, issue tracker, merge requests, mirroring, etc) part? Otherwise we'd all be using bare git repos over ssh (which works great btw!)
It's like complaining about IDE bloat while not using a text editor. Or complaining there's too many knives in a knife set instead of buying just the chef knife.
Actually, I do use git bare repos for CD too. :) The
ROOT/hooks/post-updateexecutable can be anything, which allows to go wild : on my laptop, a push to a bare repos triggers deploy to all the machines needing it (on local or remote networks), by pushing through ssh to other bare repos hosted there, which builds and installs locally, given they all have their own post-update scripts ; all of that thanks to a git push and scripts at the proper paths. I don't think any forge could do it more conveniently.For me the main interest of forges is to publish my code and get it discovered (before GitHub, getting people to find your repos hosted on your blog's server was a nightmare). Even for the collaboration, I could do with emails. That being said, most people aren't on top of their inbox, in which mails from family are mixed with work mails and commercial spam in one giant pile of unread items, so it's a good thing for them we have those issue trackers.
I find that claim so dubious. Like they list running on the smallest VMs as a feature but give no specific requirements for hosting or running the service. This whole article reads like buzzword salad. I question if the creators even know what a git forge is.