I haven't had time to really take a look at sr.ht, but that's not going to stop me from commenting!
First, as Lars says, nothing stops people from using some !Github toolchain, and if it's good, then I'm sure people can vote with their feet. In general, the workflow here for getting started with a project is to go to the repo (via URL) git clone it, and then work, so if there were something !Github that people liked, it would be a pretty straightforward transition for contributors, modulo the network effects of their familiarity with Github, existing accounts, etc. The current efforts at systemization of Github are just paving the cowpaths.
With that said, the design philosophy Michael describes (no JS, mailing list focused) seems to me to abandon a bunch of what people like about Github. I know that Linux (for instance) has a mailing-list based process, but most open source projects I am familiar with prefer a Web-based process, in particular for code/change review. For instance, both Firefox and Chromium lean very hard on their online code review tools for patch development, interdiffs, etc., and wouldn't really want to go back to e-mail. So, from that perspective, this seems like it might be kind of a regression in features.
-Ekr
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:22 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:19 AM Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:>> Also, a major reason for using Github is going where the audience is.
> If it weren't for that, there are a boatload of alternatives.
the problem is that `git clone` is brand consciousNot really?> git remote rename origin eww-github> git remote add origin $GITLAB_OR_SIRHAT_OR_WHATEVER
