Re: OT: web-based source hosting

On 2025-02-10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 11:44:59 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote:
>

So that it's harder to read or download without git or specific
browsers ...

>
GitHub works fine as a source for git-clone and git-fetch commands,
without any browser being involved. And you can push to it, if you have an
account. Yes, there are plenty of alternatives for Git repo hosting.
Someone else mentioned Codeberg; there are also GitLab and BitBucket.
>
(I think all of these require a browser interface for tasks like setting
up a repo in the first place.)

It's good to have some suggestions flowing, but a couple notes on these:

GitLab at gitlab.com also requires (or required?) agreeing to a rather
broad "indemnification" clause. Other services may have such clauses
too, but GitLab's one is quite broad and unbounded.

(At least GitLab and GitHub require specific browsers nowadays, too,
even for reading without participating.)

BitBucket started out hosting only Mercurial repos; then market pressures
forced it to add Git as an option; then the Mercurial business proved
unviable and was dropped altogether.
>
SourceForge also does Git now, but I don’t think that makes it much more
attractive. ;)
>
It is also easy for you to publish your own repos on your own server,
through a tool as simple as Gitolite.

--
Nuno Silva