> Many of the main authors of the Git source code are friends of mine and I have no intention to steal anything from anyone, only to make their great ideas more broadly useful.
By working-around/subverting the terms they provided their contributions under? While you claim to be doing this in good faith, and state "it's what's best for the broader Git ecosystem", that's all based on your own opinion which appears to ignore the benefits and intent of licenses such as the GPL.
Out of interest, Would you be happy for someone to do the same with the GitButler source code? (Feed it through an LLM and re-publish the result under an MIT license with different branding)
I've been using PyInfra for a while, albeit just for simple automation (Updating systems, checking certain stats) and I'm a big fan. Compared to Ansible, I found the docs, syntax and usage patterns much easier to get on with. Might just be a preference thing, but I always had trouble going through the Ansible docs.
Ran into some bugs, like one machine that seems to cause errors and mess up the output on restart, although that looks like it might have been addressed in this release.
I can understand that viewpoint. Ultimately though, audience/growth is not a core success metric for me, and the values/points explained in the blog post are more important. Plus there's a factor of wanting to help de-centralise away from GitHub, and help provide momentum to alternatives.
Looking at those who have starred the new Codeberg repo, at least 15 people are new today, and thus form part of a bigger audience on Codeberg.
BookStack maintainer here. Just to clarify on that, the GitHub repo will continue to be updated and mirror the Codeberg repo (including release tags/code) for the foreseeable future, it's just that I might stop specifically publishing GitHub release entries (details on the release tag) at some point to avoid the duplication of work.
Love finding a good use-case of parallel as an easy way to gain massive time savings, especially on the modern high-threaded CPUs of today. Most recently found it useful when batch-compressing large jpeg images to smaller webp files, via use with find and ImageMagick:
> Or is it just being able to run code on the server enough to be "full stack"?
To me, "full stack" would entail having responsibility for logic on both the front-end and back-end, which Fresh does.
Personally, I would not consider Laravel a full stack framework (Although it can work well with front-end frameworks to make a full-stack application). Instead I'd consider it a back-end framework.
Yeah, Docspen was a copy of BookStack. Was a really awkward and difficult thing to handle as maintainer with BookStack being my first popular OS project. It was done very purposeful in an odd way. I remember that issues, filed by BookStack users, were being re-created on the docs pen repo by (potentially fake?) docspen maintainers with pretty much the same text.
Yoginth would then commonly create issues on the BookStack repo, many of which would be issues with DocsPen and not BookStack, and would email me asking to deploy new releases. I remember being at-a-loss of how to handle it, I raised my concerns [1] and asked for advice on reddit[2]. The docspen repo then suddenly moved to GitLab before being hidden. Yoginth then deleted all issues and comments made in the BookStack repo, or this may have been just part of a full account deletion.
- https://danb.me - https://github.com/ssddanbrown - https://fosstodon.org/@danb