Galactose@sopuli.xyz to Opensource@programming.dev · edit-22 days agoLet's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Optionblog.edwardloveall.comexternal-linkmessage-square9linkfedilinkarrow-up173arrow-down16file-textcross-posted to: programming@programming.dev
arrow-up167arrow-down1external-linkLet's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Optionblog.edwardloveall.comGalactose@sopuli.xyz to Opensource@programming.dev · edit-22 days agomessage-square9linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: programming@programming.dev
I was curious about your opinions (Not my article). Also this mentions Fossil & Pijul. Which are fully-fledged Git-Alternatives (Not just github)
minus-squareKissaki@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-215 days ago Alternative for github: codeberg.org only for public FOSS
minus-squareKissaki@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days agoIt is not a bad thing. The comment claimed “alternative to GitHub”. I pointed out that it’s an alternative for only a subset of use cases/projects. Without that clarification, someone may explore or follow through and be disappointed.
minus-squareraspberriesareyummy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·16 days agoPartially true, yes, that is a downside: codeberg currently does not allow non-free licenses. But no, a repository does not have to be public.
only for
publicFOSSWhy is that a bad thing ?
It is not a bad thing.
The comment claimed “alternative to GitHub”. I pointed out that it’s an alternative for only a subset of use cases/projects. Without that clarification, someone may explore or follow through and be disappointed.
Partially true, yes, that is a downside: codeberg currently does not allow non-free licenses. But no, a repository does not have to be public.