333
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
333 points (97.7% liked)
Open Source
44260 readers
228 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
It is really easy to mirror git repos though, which makes this less of an issue than most other monopolies
True, but filling bugs, making pull requests, reviewing them and links to between projects ports much worse between forges.
To be fair, I think that is mostly a failure of git to take in these features to free them from the forges. Maybe radicle had a chance of fixing that, but…
Fossil does, but it follows a very different FOSS deveopment style, The Cathedral Style (Git follows the Bazaar style)
Yeah, and I think that nothing that is not git compatible has any chance
Fossil can export it's repos to git & import repos from git
Have I missed something? Does that mean I can use fossil to work on and contribute to git based projects seamlessly?
It's more like; you can maintain a mirror of your fossil project.
Sad, that is the feature that is really needed for an incremental transition. Without it, I do not see that adoption is actually plausible.
There's a hosting service called Chisel.
Projects lose things like issue tracking, discussions which are not git features.