Gitea project hosts its code on GitHub: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea. You must admit that is a bit ironic.
> age of massive ever-growing out of control tech monopolies that do whatever the fuck they want
GitHub is not the only option for source code hosting. There are alternatives like GitLab, Bitbucket, and numerous smaller ones.
The fork was established at the time that Gitea got entepreneurial and founded Gitea Ltd. with plans for an enterprise version. https://codeberg.org used to run on Gitea, but switched to Forgejo, and Forgejo project is hosted on Codeberg at https://codeberg.org/forgejo
git init --bare /path/to/repo.git
It does not have any visual MR or enterprisey features, but it works.
The features are basic and managed by editing text files and git-pushing them to a control repository: create repositories, add users and their keys, readonly or readwrite. There is no GUI but once you have a copy of the repo on your machine you can use one of the several git GUIs available for any OS.
Bare repo on a server is exposed to people exactly like Github: a remote URL you put in once and forget about it.
How people use their local git repository is their business, command-line, Sourcetree, GitKraken, what have you, but any of those work with any remotes.
(Sure, git by itself does not provide the other features from the hosting services like issue tracking and pull requests, but not every workflow requires those to be linked directly to the SCM)
Heck I think even the Github Desktop application also works with non-Github repositories, and they would be the only ones that would have any interest in locking people in.
Unless you mean specifically the UX of having a URL you can copy to a specific line of a specific commit in a repository, which indeed is not possible without a standard URI scheme (which does not exist) or a web client.
It is not a personal criticism to you. I find it interesting git gave us all this efficiency and the enterprise removes it by adding complexity back because employees supposedly cannot be bothered to learn their tools (or cannot be mandated) or plainly prefer a nicer ui. Not a crime, but I can see how big corporations become inefficient with this type of thinking, when appliend to hundreds of tools and processes.
It's a sad situation that if you desire exposure and community building you must maintain a fork on Github, but that's how it is for smaller projects. I am in a similar situation, with some of my projects with main repos hosted on sourcehut, but most of external engagement comes from clones on github. It is what it is, and we do what we must. :)
How does it look from the potential users' perspective when the product they market is not the product they choose to use for themselves?
Google's commitment to privacy? Google's leadership in AI?
O how I love marketing, you can say just about anything
Looks like they're working on migrating to a Gitea instance: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029 .
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029#issuecomment-1...
The people are on github, so it is really enticing.
Maybe the reddit and twitter drama creates a viable enough community for federated logins to become useful.
For any other project, sure. But when building an alternative to GitHub.. there is value in dogfooding.
Every time someone parrots this, I have to wonder if they did more than 5 minutes of reading - it's one of the top issues on the issue tracker and they've outright stated they will move once Gitea is at a spot where they are not losing functionality and history.
I did not care enough to open their issue tracker. I still don't. It is ironic, not a bit, a lot. That statement was a bit sarcastic.
I hope that put the end to your wondering.