1018
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
1018 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
84646 readers
4235 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's the genius of git: it's not tied to any website. Pull your repo from here and push it to there and you're cooking.
Yes, that’s true for the git repo itself, but a git forge can provide a multitude of related services, including issues and pull request management, CI/CD pipelines, wikis, static content hosting, package registries, etc. which are not as easily migrated.
I honestly think wiki, static hosting, package registries etc. don't belong on a git repo. Github has continuously extended their feature-set, but its caused vendor lock-in which I think is the point. How hard is it to spin up a web service to host static content? There are loads of good open source wiki projects, etc.
Depends on the point of the wiki I feel, if it's project documentation it should be in git alongside the code, if it's a generic "document store" then yeah there's better storage backends than git.
Why do it yourself in a complicated way and poke holes in my firewall and security if I can use the existing infrastructure that is already a publiclly accessible web page to host just another one? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Something's are more inherent to git forges imho Like forking, merge requests, secret branches, and team permissions.
I would prefer those be behind an API and fed into a more flexible UI honestly with the other panels being user defined views to other tools. Like a UI for tekton. A UI for Caddy or hugo or something. A UI for your issues tracker. Etc.
Even better if it federates those backends...
Maybe let the site admin have a list of approved views and configs so people aren't putting compromised views on the site.
The website around it is also just optional. You can dump git repos anywhere you want.
Of course the website is helpful and adds tooling, bit it's an extra nonetheless
Yep, amazingly flexible. If Linus had only ever made git, he'd have gone down as one of the greats.
As opposed to also having made the most used kernel in the world?
They're saying he was already famous and then did another thing that would make a person famous.
It is a weird phrasing then!
Git forges provides a lot of features these days now. From Merge requests, forks, issues tracking, secret branches, to team management stuff.
A lot more stuff gets bolted onto but they are arguably more optional but for some are the point lol
Like ci/cd at the forge level is the best to me for dev centric flows
Are you a git expert ?