forgefed | gitlab | |
---|---|---|
20 | 448 | |
983 | - | |
0.2% | - | |
5.5 | - | |
7 days ago | - | |
Bikeshed | ||
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal | - |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
forgefed
- Gitlab's ActivityPub architecture blueprint
- PyPy has moved to Git, GitHub
-
Harness launches Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor
If you don't mind me asking since you're here: will you be implementing ForgeFed in Gitness [0]? My sense is that federation is our best hope for breaking GitHub's network effects, and I'd love to see more projects like yours join the protocol.
[0] https://forgefed.org/
- ForgeFed
-
Gitlab's plan to support ActivityPub for merge requests
From the comments, Forgejo is also already working on implementing ForgeFed, an ActivityPub extension specifically designed for software forges [0]. Judging from the issue, it looks like they're well on their way [1].
I have to say, I'm not super into the idea of social media, but this is a use for federation I approve of wholeheartedly. The friction of having to create accounts on X forges (where X is the number of projects that self-host GitLab) is a huge moat for GitHub, and federation could solve that very handily and create an environment where FOSS projects can feasibly host their own code away from Microsoft's control without horribly inconveniencing everyone who wants to participate.
[0] https://forgefed.org/
[1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59
-
git-appraise – Distributed Code Review for Git
> I agree that e-mail is not perfect, but... how is GitHub better?
Please look at my comment again. I prefer email to locked in forges.
> Devs like new shiny toys, and e-mails are old technology
There is one aspect where such forges have an advantage over email - a better user experience. Aerc and the likes all good - but Github and others provide a good user experience over a tool that everyone uses - the web browser.
> we should have something better than e-mail in 2023
We really should have something better than email. I'm saying this as someone who operates a personal mail server and a bunch of desktop services for it. It's really hard to get the setup correct.
In that context, it's worth looking at forgefed (https://forgefed.org/). It's a protocol for federating forges like Gitea and Gitlab. It's built on top of ActivityPub - which behaves a bit like email (it has inboxes and outboxes for every user). From the spec, it seems like pull requests happen by sending patches to the destination forge.
> Nobody takes the time to try the e-mail workflow (even though it's really two git commands)
Email workflow seems simple. But there are two things that make it complicated:
1. The patches don't specify the commits they apply to. It's simply assumed that they apply to the head of the main branch. The commits have to be carefully rebased on the main branch before sending the patches. It could otherwise lead to conflicts and a lot of wasted time.
2. Each commit/patch is send as a single email. Developers usually make frequent commits when they develop. Such patches can be confusing and hellish to review. A sane patchset requires the developers to edit the commit history, usually using interactive rebases. Each commit should contain a single feature and shouldn't break the build.
I consider both the above to be good development practices and follow them even on my personal projects. However, this is an additional barrier to entry. In fact, this may be a bigger problem for many than setting up git for email.
-
Leveling Up Your Git Server: Sharing Repos with a Friend
Another interesting topic to look into is forge federation. Forgejo [0], the code forge on which Codeberg is based is one forge software that intends to federate their repositories between server instances over the network using ActivityPub protocol extensions such as ForgeFed [1] and F3 [2] specifications.
[0] https://forgejo.org
[1] https://forgefed.org
[2] https://lab.forgefriends.org/friendlyforgeformat
- Sono Moreno di Morrolinux. AMA!
-
Let's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Option
> If you want to look into people who disagree with you: https://forgefed.org/
gitlab
-
Gitlab Duo
Since the relevant code appears to be in the "ee" directory <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/v16.11.0-ee/ee/l...> and is not present in the foss repo, I'm guessing the answer is no, at least for now. They do have a history of "releasing" features from EE back to CE but my suspicion is not for LLM stuff
- Code Search Is Hard
- XZ Backdoor Investigation Request to Gitlab Team
-
Client side Git hooks 101
(Side note: Issues are usually hash-prefixed like #1234 both on GitLab and GitHub. However, commit messages must not begin with a hash, they would be considered a comment and ignored. Therefore, GitHub has introduced the alternative prefix GH- and I've contributed a similar prefix GL- to GitLab a while ago.)
- Assign Issue to an AI Developer
-
BuildKit in depth: Docker's build engine explained
and its "oh, you want multi-arch, do you?" friend. While prosecuting this <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/339567> I learned that https://hub.docker.com/layers/multiarch/qemu-user-static/7.2... actually mutates the binfmt_misc in buildx's context in order to exec the static copy of qemu in it https://github.com/multiarch/qemu-user-static/blob/v7.2.0-1/...
and, that the buildx plugin itself has some qemu magick in it, which got addressed in a minor version bump but I couldn't track down the relevant GitHub issue this second (I've flushed it from my mind, only recalling that there were a lot of actors in that tire fire)
-
Gitlab password reset bug leaves more than 5.3K servers up for grabs
This is actually a follow-up refactor, the fix is here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/commit/abe79e4ec43798...
- ExifTool CVE-2021-22204 – Arbitrary Code Execution
- Critical Gitlab vulnerability exposes 2FA-less users to account takeovers
- Upcoming critical Gitlab security issue
What are some alternatives?
kyoto - Golang SSR-first Frontend Library
Gitea - Git with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CD
gitness - Gitness is an Open Source developer platform with Source Control management, Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery.
Harbor - An open source trusted cloud native registry project that stores, signs, and scans content.
cicada - A FOSS, cross-platform version of GitHub Actions and Gitlab CI
onedev - Git Server with CI/CD, Kanban, and Packages. Seamless integration. Unparalleled experience.
killed-by-microsoft - Part guillotine, part graveyard for Microsoft's doomed apps, services, and hardware.
rich-markdown-editor - The open source React and Prosemirror based markdown editor that powers Outline. Want to try it out? Create an account:
git-appraise - Distributed code review system for Git repos
gitlab-foss
linux - Linux kernel source tree
chatwoot - Open-source live-chat, email support, omni-channel desk. An alternative to Intercom, Zendesk, Salesforce Service Cloud etc. 🔥💬