
Kallithea – Aself-hosted alternative to GitHub - BerislavLopac
https://kallithea-scm.org/
======
sam_goody
Since there are so many threads already, here is a recap of the competition:

Self Hosted (in order of anecdotal popularity) \- Gitlab \- Gitea (fork of
Gogs) \- Gogs \- Phabricator \- GitBucket \- Rhodecode \- Kalithea (fork of
Rhodecode) \- GitPrep \- Allura \- GitSSB \- Pagure

If you want hosted Git, there are many competitors, but some of the notable
are \- Gitlab \- Attlassian BitBucket \- Google Cloud Repositories \- Amazon
CodeCommit \- Canonical Launchpad \- Sourceforge

All of which assume you want git, but other DVCSs are Mercurial (which is
supported by a number of the above servers) and Fossil.

~~~
hsribei
Adding to the list of "If you want hosted Git": Keybase.io.

They provide encrypted git hosting for free:
[https://keybase.io/blog/encrypted-git-for-
everyone](https://keybase.io/blog/encrypted-git-for-everyone)

No issues, pull requests, and social features though.

~~~
dddw
for private repos this is supercool. was already on keybase, now it makes even
more sense to use it more

------
niftich
Kallithea originated in 2014 [1] as a fork of RhodeCode 1.7.2 to rectify a
licensing ambiguity that the fork-author felt arose in 2013. The GUI web
interface was the most affected by hasty replacements, which perhaps explains
the lack of polish in design.

RhodeCode continued to be developed, and in 2016 the RhodeCode Community
Edition was re-licensed under AGPLv3.

[1] [https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jul/15/why-
kallithea/](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jul/15/why-kallithea/)

------
rgrieselhuber
Love the idea. The UI looks a bit dated. My recommendation would be to just
copy what the main players have done as a starting point, unless you have a
radically better UX solution. Then innovate from there.

~~~
godzillabrennus
I like starting with the excellent and open source AdminLTE interface.

[https://adminlte.io/themes/AdminLTE/index2.html](https://adminlte.io/themes/AdminLTE/index2.html)

------
pierreortega
I consider Gogs a better option. The UI is also less painful
[https://gogs.io/](https://gogs.io/)

~~~
mistrial9
Gogs is a visual clone of the Github graphic design, functions, menu
structure, in short, just about everything from Github. SO sure, it works well
and looks good, but uh.. its a total copy. Meanwhile Gitea has forked Gogs, as
noted extensively very recently.

Regarding Kallithea, I installed and used it for work. I like Kallithea,
although the features and interface are not as well developed as some
alternatives discussed here.

Kallithea is far more lightweight to setup and admin that Gitlab, but not as
full-featured as Gitea, which I recommend to anyone who asks.

------
kuberstone
I compared in details both rhodecode and kallithea for our org

ui is something personal i guess, both aren't perfect. For usage in 50+ users
enterprise rhodecode is much better.

It has more features, and it feels this project is actually moving forward
contrary to kallithea [https://www.mail-archive.com/kallithea-
general@sfconservancy...](https://www.mail-archive.com/kallithea-
general@sfconservancy.org/msg02605.html)

The only thing we liked more is GPL license over AGPl of rhodecode

------
seagoat
I've been using Kallithea with 8GB+ binary Mercurial repos. It works on a
server with 2GB of RAM and has been running for a few years now. If you want
something lightweight that will work with huge binary repos (game projects and
such), Kallithea is for you.

------
IshKebab
No screenshots. No demo. Do they really want anyone to use it?

~~~
ptman
No demo? What about the "see it in action" link on the page:
[https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/](https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/)

------
kankroc
If anyone want to setup Gitea easily (but not in a docker container) I made a
gist a couple days ago that install it and creates a service for easy
management on ubuntu 16+

[https://gist.github.com/cbdec05bca7907d70b156662dbd7c811](https://gist.github.com/cbdec05bca7907d70b156662dbd7c811)

------
Samis2001
It would be even better if Kallithea or RhodeCode adopted the UI style shared
by GitHub/Gogs/Gitea and friends. Then we could have the best of both worlds -
good, well-known UI but with software that isn't as closely coupled to Git as
some others are (and is lightweight with requirements)

------
andrzejsz
Does anybody knows about some alternative with homepage feature something like
github pages?

~~~
nothrabannosir
This is not what you asked, but if you’re looking to host a static website by
pushing to Git in particular, you might be interested in Netlify. They’re
essentially a build step + static host. If you like Github pages, this might
be up your alley.

------
akskos
I hope there won't be anymore one single source control site that everybody
uses.

~~~
bovermyer
In that scenario, how would source discovery work?

~~~
krupan
Same way you discover anything on the internet.

~~~
cweagans
Wander aimlessly through hundreds of pages of Google results until you find
something loosly related to what you're looking for in a forum post from ten
years ago by a person who doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the internet
except for this one forum -- and he's been inactive for eight years?

------
everdev
Isn't GitLab a self-hosted alternative to GitHub?

~~~
mikekchar
Yes. But it's not the only one.

I think the question you were hoping to have answered is, "Why would you pick
this over GitLab?". And potentially the discussion you wanted to invoke was,
"Is there an advantage to going with a full free software solution as opposed
to a product that is primarily proprietary, but has an open core?"

Personally, I think there is, but in the case of GitLab it may not matter. Now
that there are some free software heavy hitters (Gnome and Debian) who rely on
the open core of GitLab, there is some more assurance that this open core will
not become a kind of cripple-ware try-before-you-buy situation. Those groups
have enough horse power to maintain the open part of GitLab if they choose to
do so.

Having said that, I think there is room for other free software entries in
this space and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. In some ways
the acquisition of GitHub may be the catalyst necessary to get things started,
and I think it's a good thing.

~~~
hawski
In a way AFAIK Gnome and Debian moved to GitLab, because, among other reasons,
they did not have enough horse power to maintain their own solution - plethora
of services. Of course if the GitLab would fold, they would maintain it, but
I'm not sure they would be better off than before in case of work allocation
at least.

~~~
sam_goody
If gitlab were to fold, they would probably move to whoever is the best
candidate at the time.

While moving is very painful, the fact that git is distributed means that
setting up camp somewhere else is pretty smooth. Even the headaches of the
other stuff, such as issues et al, will probably be handled by whoever the new
host is.

------
durandal1
But instead of only the code being handled by the VCS, why not make the wiki
and tracker distributed too?

Fossil: [https://fossil-scm.org/](https://fossil-scm.org/)

Notable user:
[https://sqlite.org/whynotgit.html](https://sqlite.org/whynotgit.html)

~~~
mikekchar
I'm going to give Fossil a try, mainly because it is the only thing I've seen
that has everything that I currently want. I'm a little bit worried about the
Cathedral/Bazaar approach... I really like the idea that every copy of the
source code is an implied branch. However, I suspect that I will have few
enough collaborators for it to be of any matter.

Their characterisation of GPL vs BSD licensing in the git vs fossil comparison
is frustrating though. I wonder if there is a way to convince them to update
it because it really reduces their credibility. I'm specifically referring to
"the GPL license grants the right to read source code to anyone who promises
to give back enhancements". This is just completely incorrect. From the GPL
V3: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey,
without conditions". In other words, as long as you don't "convey"
(distribute) your changes, you can do whatever the heck you want (including
reading the source code).

~~~
hvidgaard
When taken out of context, it does sound bad, but please include the entire
paragraph, because it's clear that not as you describe.

> To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read source
> code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other words, the
> act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) implies
> acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed back
> under the same license. (The details are more complex, but the foregoing
> captures the essence of the idea.) A big advantage of the GPL is that
> anybody can contribute to the code without having to sign additional legal
> documentation because they have implied their acceptance of the GPL license
> by the very act of reading the source code. This means that a GPL project
> can legally accept anonymous and drive-by patches.

~~~
mikekchar
This entire paragraph is incorrect. You _do not_ imply your acceptance of the
GPL by reading the source code. You do not have to accept the license at all.
However, if you do not accept the license, then you have no right to
distribute the code. It is on conveyance (distribution) that the restrictions
show up. There are absolutely no restrictions on what you can do if you do not
distribute the code.

That whole section in their documentation is just weird, to be honest. There
is nothing in the BSD license that requires you to sign additional legal
documentation either. The _fossil_ project requires copyright assignment to
include your code in the project (many FSF projects require the same thing
with their projects for similar reasons).

They should just delete that section so that they don't look like they don't
know what they are talking about.

Edit: They could rewrite the section to say that by distributing the code you
have implicitly agreed to the license. This is more or less true. The license
actually hinges on the fact that you never have to agree, but that if you
don't agree then you only that the rights assigned to you by copyright (see
section 9 of the GPL v3). The bit that's weird is that there is absolutely no
difference with the BSD license -- you don't have to agree, but if you don't,
then you don't have a license. The only real difference is that the BSD
license doesn't explicitly say so.

At first I thought they were trying to make a political point, but the more I
look at it, the more I think they just want to justify requiring copyright
assignment. The obvious question is "Why don't all those GPL projects require
it?" So they came up with something plausible, but completely incorrect.

------
copremesis
I'm surprised out of all the drama surrounding M$ purchase of GitHub I haven't
seen many mentions of BitBucket
[https://bitbucket.org/](https://bitbucket.org/)

I've been using this for years now since you get free private repos.

~~~
_wmd
pre-Atlassian BitBucket was a lovely app, then they landed that Web 9.0 JS
abomination redesign. Because waiting 30 seconds for uncached Javascript
assets to load while on the clock is totally acceptable, when all you really
need is 500 bytes worth of a Git directory listing to render.

Left feedback, no response. Left feedback again, still no response. Moved
everything to GitLab.

It's really hard to see great apps like this (and Reddit as a more recent
example) destroyed by.. seemingly.. people given too much time to do their
jobs. I'm not a front end guy, but the feeling I get is that it has the same
problem as backend. Can't just cobble a few well-tested Django views together
any more, must have a 16-microservice mess to ensure the CV is fully padded.
Makes me so sad

~~~
Froyoh
You should try the new BitBucket, it's awesome.

~~~
notpeter
You and I have different standards of awesome. Mine does not include
placeholders following every click.

[https://cl.ly/3p3a2e3C0K2T](https://cl.ly/3p3a2e3C0K2T)

~~~
Guillaume86
Yes Attlassian have pretty disappointing UX standards IMO, JIRA has similar
issues since the redesign.

~~~
pure-awesome
Man, Atlassian... they royally screwed up with SourceTree as well; v2 is
unusable on many systems, to the point that myself and many users have
downgraded to v1.

For a bit of entertainment, take a look at this open issue
[https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/SRCTREEWIN-7374](https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/SRCTREEWIN-7374)
created on 01/Jun/2017\. Yes, an issue that makes the product _unusable_ for
many users, that has been open for _over a year_ now.

------
aviau
Also worth checking out: Fedora's minimalistic git forge.

[https://pagure.io/pagure](https://pagure.io/pagure)

