Hi all! > One of the benefits of using Sourcehut is that one does not need an > account to participate. Projects typically accept patches via email, and > the mailing lists and ticket trackers are open to anyone with an email > address. > Gitea also has similar Javascript issues to Gitlab. Even without email, > one can comfortably browse Sourcehut in Lynx. But thank you for offering > to host the project, René. These are for sure valid points for chosing SourceHut. My experience with communitys in various flavours told me to step back from having a completely open system in favour of some sort of registration/moderation. But i understand that sometimes it is more important to have the barrier for contribution as low as possible. > Sourcehut can also be self-hosted if desired, though the process is > likely more involved than that for Gitea. I had a look in self-hosting SourceHut before choosing gemini, so my knowledge might be outdated. But back than it needed way more effort to get it going than i can do in my spare time. > Additionally there is the risk of a self-hosted gitea instance going down > and there are maintenance costs which would be imposed on the hoster. > It would be great to have the source self-hosted but for the stability > and longevity of the community I'm not sure if it's the best decision. > I support DJ's decision to use Sourcehut. This can happen with a commercial hosting as well. As far as i know you need to have a paid account on Sourcehut to have public repos, so in the end someone will need to pay anyway. If we move to another source forge of any kind and stick with having a single person owning the repos nothing is won compared the situation we are facing currently. We need to gather a team of interested people to increase the bus factor of the project. regards René
---
Previous in thread (18 of 28): 🗣️ Andrew Thorp (andrew.thorp.dev (a) gmail.com)
Next in thread (20 of 28): 🗣️ Andrew Thorp (andrew.thorp.dev (a) gmail.com)