[pneumaticteam]

I’ve always believed in free software versions and plans, but I only opened my heart to open source about a week ago. Funny enough, my software career began with a decision not to go open source with my first product, choosing a proprietary license instead. Now, after 20 years, life has come full circle, and I’ve come to understand that open source is the only right way to go.

I'm just taking my first steps in this world, and while those steps may seem basic, I truly appreciate your guidance here. Using a non-proprietary GitHub alternative hadn’t crossed my mind, and it seems like a great idea. This week, we're mostly focused on building decent documentation, but I'll add this to my to-do list as a high priority.

Which one would you recommend?

[esperent]

If the person who above you is indeed complaining about hosting the project on GitHub (never heard the phrase "code forge" before), then, speaking as someone who's spent my entire career focused on open source projects, all of which are hosted on GitHub, I think this is a ridiculous complaint. Especially if you want other people to contribute to the project, hosting it on a less familiar platform will probably just drive potential contributors away, except for a very few hardcore folks.

[toastal]

Code forge isn’t a weird phase & existed before Git. It is the precise term for a collaborative software, often web-based, for hosting a source code repository & perhaps bug tracker, review, & so on, but it doesn’t specify the provider’s or the type of version control system used. The prior popular alternative was mailing lists. It is the “forge” in the name SourceForge.

You are missing what a mirror is—you can use both simultaneously. This increases accessibility to those blocked under nation-state blocks or US sanctions, but also for those that value their freedom/privacy as well as those that require a lighter experience without a heavy JavaScript web application. You also won’t get to hear from this crowd that wishes for accessibility if stuck in the proprietary echo chamber. In the future, some of these forges will support ForgeFed which won’t require specific accounts with a system. Forgejo in particular follows Microsoft’s product to a fault in my opinion, but it means those that can’t pick up new skills will feel precisely at home. Sticking to hegemony doesn’t mean it is good or aligning with the changes in the world you would like to see.

> Choosing proprietary tools and services for your free software project ultimately sends a message to downstream developers and users of your project that freedom of all users—developers included—is not a priority.

— Matt Lee, https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opinion-github-vs-gitla...

You also might want to try out some of the forge alternatives—especially those that aren’t Git—since it seems you’ve conservatively only tried one one platform. How do you know about the others & what advantages or disadvantages they bring?

[esperent]

> Code forge

I didn't imply it was a weird phrase, it's rather lovely actually. I've just never heard of before so I wanted to ensure that I hadn't misunderstood you.

> since it seems you’ve conservatively only tried one one platform

I've used GitHub, BitBucket, Gitlab, and definitely one or two others at some point. However, it's been predominantly GitHub because that's where all the open source projects I work with are hosted. Except occasionally for when I'm doing work on a private (closed source) repo, in which case I've found most people use BitBucket.

[toastal]

Codeberg, Notabug, GitLab, SourceHut are probably the most popular options that are not self-hosted for Git (not that self-hosting is bad). Some of these can even be configured to automatically mirror to give those that care about their privacy or blocked by US sanctions the opportunity to contribute.