• @Anafroj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    659 months ago

    There hasn’t been a new Git repo launch in almost a decade

    Am I the only person annoyed they seem to mistake repositories for forges? It's already annoying when casual users say "git" for "GitHub", but those guys actually want to build a forge, explaining they're going to do better than anyone else. Maybe start by properly using the terms?

    • @kinttach@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      249 months ago

      And of course there have been forges launched, including SourceHut, Gitea, Gogs, Forgejo…

      • @Anafroj@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        That's the name we use to designate software like GitHub, GitLab and similar, which provide repositories hosting and tooling like issue trackers. It's supposed to be named like that because of SourceForge, the oldest of such tools, although I didn't hear the term "forge" before the last 5 years or so, long after SourceForge demise, so I imagine there is a bit of nostalgia in this name (not sure who is nostalgic of SourceForge, though 😂). The wikipedia page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)

        • @interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 months ago

          So, a web front end to git ? Why do you say SourceForge is dead, there are many open source projects on SourceForge, are they at risk of disappearing ?

          • @pound_heap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            49 months ago

            It's not just a web front end. I would call it a software development lifecycle service. On top of repos for source code management there could be a bunch of services: Issue tracker, CI/CD automation, static pages hosting, flexible permissions system, even pull requests - all this is not Git.

            Forge is a nice and easy name, but not sure if many people realize what it means or recognize that meaning.

          • @Anafroj@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            "Git hosting" would be more appropriate. Unless that by frontend, you mean specifically web frontend, but that would be weird, because forges also provide the web backend part.

            Sourceforge was the biggest FOSS host in the 2000s, before GitHub (mainly because there was not much centralization to begin with). That train is long gone. :) Sure, the name and website Sourceforge still exist. Myspace, Digg and Yahoo do too. They are basically web ghosts, only an echo of what they once were.

          • @emax_gomax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            Its not a fronted, you don't purely commit and manage code from github. It's a platform for hosting git repositories that supports integration with CI/CD tools. At its heart git is simple (enough), it's a version control software. Github is a Web platform that hosts projects version controlled with git and adds in features like pull requests and reviews or github actions for building/linting your project.

    • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      189 months ago

      I complained when the term "crypto" was co-opted. Come die with me on this hill where we care about things.

    • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      109 months ago

      Also plain wrong - Codeberg launched in 2019. Now the question is: did the author just not know better, or is he paid not to know?

    • @emax_gomax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      79 months ago

      I thought you were being overly pedantic but my god, they keep repeating the point. They seem to have no idea what the difference between a platform hosting code repositories and an individual repository is or even what version control software is. What the bloody hell is this.

      • @Anafroj@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        At the very least, it means the CEO doesn't understand the domain. It may be because he sees this part of the business as secondary and less important, or because it was developed so fast he didn't have time to grasp the concepts, probably he was not a driving force in that effort. I certainly hope the tech side is more aware. Without more proof of CEO implication, I certainly would not bet on that horse to survive in the distant future, though.