logo

drewdevault.com

[mirror] blog and personal website of Drew DeVault git clone https://hacktivis.me/git/mirror/drewdevault.com.git

Should-you-move-to-sr.ht.md (3113B)

    

  1. ---
  2. date: 2018-06-05
  3. layout: post
  4. title: Should you move from GitHub to sr.ht
  5. tags: [sourcehut]
  6. ---
  8. I'm not terribly concerned about Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub, but I
  9. don't fault those who are worried. I've been working on my alternative platform,
  10. [sr.ht](https://sr.ht), for quite a while. I'm not about to leave GitHub because
  11. of Microsoft alone. I do have some political disagreements with GitHub and
  12. Microsoft, but those are also not the main reason that I'm building sr.ht. I
  13. simply think I can do it better. If my approach aligns with your needs, then
  14. sr.ht may be the platform for you.
  16. There are several GitHub alternatives, but for the most part they're basically
  17. GitHub rip-offs. Unlike GitLab, Gogs/Gitea, BitBucket; I don't see the GitHub UX
  18. as the pinnacle of project hosting - there are many design choices (notably pull
  19. requests) which I think have lots of room for improvement. sr.ht instead
  20. embraces git more closely, for example building *on top* of email rather than
  21. *instead of* email.
  23. GitHub optimizes for the end-user and the drive-by contributor. sr.ht optimizes
  24. for the maintainers and core contributors instead. We have patch queues and
  25. ticket queues which you can set up automated filters in or manually curate, and
  26. are reusable for projects on external platforms. You have tools which allow
  27. you to customize the views you see separately from the views visitors see, like
  28. bugzilla-style custom ticket searches. Our CI service gives you KVM
  29. virtualization and knobs you can tweak to run sophisticated automation for your
  30. project. Finally, all of it is [open
  31. source](https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/?search=sr.ht).
  33. The business model is also something I think I can do better. GitHub and GitLab
  34. are both VC-funded and trapped into appeasing their shareholders (or now, in
  35. GitHub's case, the needs of Microsoft as a whole). I think this leads to
  36. incentives which don't align with the users, as it's often more important to
  37. support the bottom line than to build what the users want or need. Rather than
  38. trying to raise as much money as possible, the sr.ht aims to be more a
  39. grassroots platform. I'm still working on the money details, but each user will
  40. be expected to pay a subscription fee and growth will be artificially slowed if
  41. necessary to make sure the infrastructure can keep up. In my opinion, venture
  42. capital does not lead to healthy businesses or a healthy economy on the whole,
  43. and I think the users suffer for it. My approach is different.
  45. As for my own projects and the plan for moving them, I don't intend to move
  46. anything until it won't be disruptive to the project. I've been collecting
  47. feedback from co-maintainers and core contributors to each of the projects I
  48. expect to move and using this feedback to drive sr.ht priorities. They will
  49. eventually move, but only when it's ready.
  51. I intend to open sr.ht to the public soon, once I have a billing system in place
  52. and break ground on mailing lists (among some smaller improvements). If anyone
  53. is interested in checking it out prior to the public release, shoot me an email
  54. at [sir@cmpwn.com](mailto:sir@cmpwn.com).