Hacker News Reader

Comment by tstusr20190823 | Hacker News Reader

tstusr20190823

Am I the only one who can't find the source of this "open source software"? How they can beat Bitbucket while they hide the code under unusable UI?

View on HN

> Where is the source?

The homepage links to https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/?search=sr.ht (EDIT: which is now also the URL in the blogpost with the link text "100% open source software")

There are also Hg repos at hg.sr.ht; idk how easy it is to find git.sr.ht from hg.sr.ht.

> how can they beat Bitbucket while the code is unusable

Well, for Hg users, it's not like there's going to be much of a choice in a year (given BB is sunsetting Hg support), right?

Mercurial users can use their builtin Web UI unlike Git users

git has gitweb:

https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-GitWeb

But in both cases, the user has to have a server to put it on, making services like Sourcehut and Bitbucket (may it rest in peace) useful.

gitweb requires server setup, while Mercurial web ui can quickly start locally without any configuration and that was the one of mercurial selling point until github and other services arrives.

`git instaweb` is sufficient to get a working gitweb stood up.

$ git instaweb

lighttpd not found. Install lighttpd or use --httpd to specify another httpd daemon.

Apparently, not.

You have to install the dependencies of a piece of software to use that piece of software.

Epic win response lol

I think the way you're using hg's web UI is slightly different to the uses I think of for sites like GitHub, BitBucket or SourceHut.

A web UI is fine for being able to see the different commits, and files at different points in time.

But people also make use of GitHub as a hosted repository for sharing code with others, as an issue tracker, and for doing code review etc. -- for sharing things outside a local network, there's the understanding that either you're paying someone else to host it, or you're making effort to host it yourself, so "requires setup" isn't much of an issue.

"sourcehut competes with bitbucket" puts more emphasis on the latter than the former.

Clicking the text "100% open source software" brings you to the following list of git repos which collectively contain the source code for sourcehut:

https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/?search=sr.ht

Can you make "sr.ht git services" the blue title of the repo "card" and "~sircmpwn/git.sr.ht" - the subtitle (with dimmed color)? This simple change will improve UI usability in 10x times.

Well, the former is the description and the latter is the name.

The former is a human-readable text which allow eye to easy understand and latter is a technical info which is not required to have space on the screen and makes UI "hard to use".

I wouldn't consider the repository name any more technical in nature than the name of a CD or film. I think it makes sense to have the title be more prominent than the description of what it does.

I sort of agree about the confusion.

I think the proper UI fix would be to split the username (sircmpwn) from the repo name (git.sr.ht) and make them two separate links divided by a non-link " / ".

This is what github does and I feel like it's a standard people expect, similar to having the logo of a page on the top left.

Think Craigslist - totally clunky UI that totally dominates its market

Bitbucket may have better styles, but its load times are atrocious.

Everything from Atlassian is slow. Tried Confluence lately?

Hmmm our confluence is pretty snappy I never notice any real lag. Especially compared to most web sites off campus. Jira on the other hand...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com