Comment by ackyshake
I like sourcehut. It's the only forge out there that isn't set out to copy the Github UI like everyone else. And its UI itself feels instantaneous, as if it was running locally.
I like sourcehut. It's the only forge out there that isn't set out to copy the Github UI like everyone else. And its UI itself feels instantaneous, as if it was running locally.
sourcehut is a product that feels like it was just built for me and what I care about, I absolutely love the design. But it's tough to use for a team that isn't building open source software. Your teammates will probably be perplexed by the UI because it's so different. The tooling for sending and receiving patches is quite poor, there is no decent GUI email client with patch support. There's also no organization support or ability to apply principle of least access like with a codeowners file.
> In particular, unless it is explicitly mentioned in the README, it isn't at all clear how to report a bug, or submit a patch, or view relevant mailing list archives.
Those are meant to be mentioned in the README. Each of sourcehut's parts including the repo frontend, project page, mailing list, task list, documentation pages, etc are independent. There is no predefined way in which these are associated with each other like on GitHub. For example, I use a single mailing list for all of my FOSS projects.
I also like it, particularly for its outstanding CI, but I don't like the patch/email-centric approach. (Gave it a try, didn't have a good time.)