Pleroma

Use , they said. Itโ€™s Free Software, they said. They will respect your privacy. Theyโ€™re the good ones.

And it seems thereโ€™s no opt-out. Accept or leave.

@jwildeboer Welp back to Gitea with me then

@cathal @jwildeboer Gitea is a good way to go, with git.fsfe.org we've made excellent experiences. You don't even have to self-host, services like codeberg.org or gitea.com come to the rescue. All Gitea is missing in regards to decentralisation is federation between their instances

@mxmehl @cathal yes. Federation is essential. The squaring of the circle by recentralising git feels wrong.

@jwildeboer @mxmehl @cathal Just spin up multiple instances, run cron jobs to sync, and add multiple remotes to local repos. That's absolutely possible and makes Git decentralized.

@CyReVolt @jwildeboer @mxmehl This imagines that git hosting is just about git, which isn't really true. It's about having a well integrated way to tie git into issue management, features, project management, documentation, builds, etc. etc

@cathal @jwildeboer @mxmehl Maybe that's why some projects use mailing lists and have their docs within the repos. Assets can always be built from the sources, ideally.

@CyReVolt @jwildeboer @mxmehl Yea but.. software is also not only for people who know and use git. Documentation isn't really document-ey if your actual users can't access it because they don't know git.
Also, as a software developer, I detest email passionately and would rather switch careers than have to use email to organise anything.

@cathal @mxmehl @jwildeboer @CyReVolt Documentation can be in git and still be approachable for users: https://doc.coreboot.org/ is automatically compiled from markdown files in a git repo.
replies
0
announces
0
likes
2

@CyReVolt @cathal @mxmehl @jwildeboer you don't even need cron jobs: gitea has "fetch from somewhere else" built in. But there's still room for improvement (but then, where isn't?)

@patrick @jwildeboer @mxmehl @CyReVolt But how do they contribute to docs, translations, etcetera? That's why Wikis are such a nice feature of Gitlab, and such a shame to lose.
We should always be pushing to make software development more inclusive to non-devs, it's the only way we end up making more things relevant to non devs. Crucial for accessibility, too.

@cathal @patrick @jwildeboer @CyReVolt I'm not sure whether you implied that, but has wikis as well. They offer basically everything an average developer needs. So it's like Mastodon in comparison to Twitter, except that the users on different instances cannot easily connect and contribute comments or PRs.

would be a huge boost for Gitea (and other software supporting such a standard) and break the network effect that benefits Github and Gitlab.

@mxmehl @patrick @jwildeboer @CyReVolt Oh I love Gitea, I'm gonna go back to self hosting a server for me and some friends with this recent shove from Gitlab.

@cathal @patrick @jwildeboer @mxmehl We actually dropped the Wiki and switched to sphinx for the docs in coreboot. I'd like to oppose the idea that "git is only for devs"; many documentation contributions come to projects from non-devs via git. That's actually what many projects even recommend for first-time contributers. :)
Also, nothing keeps you from hosting a wiki independently. It's another way of decentralization, decoupling infra.

@cathal @CyReVolt @mxmehl @jwildeboer Once users contribute, they are contributors. As contributors we can expect them to use the tools of the trade. We dropped the wiki because it led to poor drive-by contributions in a corner of the project that was outside our processes.

I'd also be interested to have a web tool to simplify the editing process of a git backed documentation base (translations don't matter for coreboot, we don't have UI), but doing it that way ensures that it's part of the review process we have in place.

@patrick @cathal @CyReVolt @jwildeboer

First of all, the complexity of the tool defines the threshold new users have to take to contribute. Git is quite complex for inexperienced users, they have to read a lot of documentation first. We had to make the experience in the FSFE that you can lose valuable contributors by that.

On the other hand, but also Github offer editing files/creating PRs via the web interface only. Branch names ("patch-1") are not really helpful then, but it works

@mxmehl @patrick @CyReVolt @jwildeboer More informative patch names could probably be fixed with a PR to add a "describe your edit" box, like Wikipedia does.
I agree by the way, I know far more people who will never contribute of it requires a terminal, than I know people who will. And making things elitist by saying "you must be this techie to contribute".. well, you do you. But I think it's a regression in culture-not progress.

@cathal @jwildeboer @CyReVolt @mxmehl It's possible to create a new change to coreboot's documentation without ever seeing a terminal, review.coreboot.org allows for that (even if the flow for creating an empty, open change is all but straight forward). If there's a way to streamline that, I'm all for that, but I haven't found that yet (and there's so much other stuff that competes for attention to implement it myself).

What I'm not open to however is to silo away documentation into a place where devs only get to see it by chance. That's what happened with the wiki we used to have, and that's what happens with a wiki in Github/Gitlab/Gitea - even if it were to be stored in a separate git namespace.

In my experience documentation really needs to live in the source tree (and undergo the same review processes as source code) to have a chance to remain synchronized and current. The other route would be to have writer communities that are strong enough to take care of that manually and on their own, but that's a weak spot in most open source projects.

tl;dr: hide git, for all I care, but keep documentation and source close together or they'll drift apart.

@cathal @mxmehl @patrick @jwildeboer Git neither requires anyone to be "techie" nor to use a Terminal ever. You can use one the dozens of GUI Tools out there. Posing the assumption of elitism is what actually creates it. No FUDding, please. :-)

@CyReVolt @mxmehl @patrick @jwildeboer He fact that even professional devs have to keep checking stack overflow to figure out how to fix git borks suggests things are not so straightforward even when the terminal is elided.
It's not FUD to say "professional tools built for software development are designed with professional software developers in mind".

@cathal @jwildeboer @mxmehl @CyReVolt I did IT support for a living for several years. If the amount of support need by professionals is what you're looking for, my recommendation is a pencil and index cards. Everything else fails in unexpected ways.

@CyReVolt @patrick @jwildeboer I agree to @cathal. At the FSFE, we manage our website with Git and ask voluntary translators to contribute their work through it. Although we invested a lot of time in documentation, it's a burden for many to contribute.

Git is an awesome tool, and I wouldn't want to miss it, but if you're not used to Git it can drive you crazy. The whole idea and concept is genius, but very unintuitive for many people. If you made diverging experiences, feel blessed :)

@mxmehl @cathal @patrick @jwildeboer @CyReVolt

Work is being done on federating git servers including gitea. https://notabug.org/peers/forgefed

@jwildeboer just host your own gitea server under your table. the best thing you could do.

@koyu Iโ€™ll just use git and mailing lists with a slice of IRC on the side.

@jwildeboer
Even the Enterprise edition? That's not going to go over well.

@bityz See my followup toot. For now, they have stopped the rollout of these trackers. The whole program is on hold while they reflect on the criticisms.

@MatejLach check this reply @jwildeboer and a whole thread b - they rolled back

@saper

They did, but the fact it was even considered shows the leadership there is about pleasing VCs, not focusing on users.

Coupled with their recent hiring restrictions and censorship of employees who disagree with leadership, it really doesn't look too good for GitLab.

@jwildeboer

@MatejLach @jwildeboer
Sure, I am not saying that is hearing in the good direction. Just don't like boosting of incomplete and outdated information. Thanks!

@saper

I have a whole thread on GitLab about their recent behavior where I mention the rollback in context. They're not respecting privacy. The rollback is because of the bad PR, boosted because I have not seen the actual email they've sent before.

@jwildeboer

@MatejLach bring on @forgefed (or or or )! There are lots of projects working on a federated network, but there is a lot still to be done to get it all usable for anyone other than command line wizards. A good test project would be a docs forge, like , but federated. If mere mortals can collaborate on docs using federated editing tools, they're ready for anyone to use.
@saper @jwildeboer