Harness launches Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor
Harness launches Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor
Since its launch in 2017, Harness, the software delivery platform founded by AppDynamics founder and CEO Jyoti Bansal, expanded from being continuous code
You're viewing a single thread.
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?
And of course there have been forges launched, including SourceHut, Gitea, Gogs, Forgejo…
Gitea, Gogs, Forgejo
"They are the same picture."
Here I am knowing the difference between git and GitHub, GitLab, ...
But what's a 'forge' please ?
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)
SOURCEFORGE: I'm not dead yet!
^^
Oh, my apologies, Sourceforge! Say hi to Myspace for me!
And while you're at it, could you bring some wine and cake to GeoCities?
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 ?
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.
"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.
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.
I myself have launched several new git repos in the last decade. Where's my article TechCrunch?
I complained when the term "crypto" was co-opted. Come die with me on this hill where we care about things.
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?
Codeberg isn't an entirely new forge. It's just a well-known gitea/forgejo instance. Sourcehut would probably be a better example.
Thank you for the correction! Then it's also wrong due to Gitea which launched in 2016.
The worst part is that this is a direct quote from Harness' CEO, not from TechCrunch author. :) Maybe they have a great product, I don't know, but it certainly feels like an amateurish launch. :D
Yeah, if a CEO has to lie to make their product seem better, it's blacklisted in my mind.
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.
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.