Git Forges

Rohan Kumar seirdy at
Wed Sep 1 18:10:37 BST 2021

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:25:02PM +0000, Jonathan McHugh wrote:
>I have been deliberating regarding which git forge tool most 
>compliments Gemini's protocol.
>Naturally, web frontends such as Cgit are a product of legacy thinking - to serve git in a HTTP environment.
>I do agree with Anna "CyberTailor", that Cgit outputting Gemini would be 'poggers'

Indeed, anybody who could pull this off would be a certified PogChamp™.

That being said, I'm not certain that this should be of high priority. I 
think a good Gemini landing page for a project is probably better. A 
Gemini export of `git log` might be worthwhile, but the rest can still 
be better seen with a git clone.

Expecting users to do a `git clone` for very large repos is unrealistic, 
of course. However, Gemini is not optimized for very large files with 
many thousands of lines. This isn't quite the "DocuWeb" niche that 
Gemini occupies.

Gemini is an *alternative* to the WWW, not a *replacement*. Bringing 
complete git frontends to Gemini doesn't seem as good as simply making 
good landing pages for projects. Sample content in such a landing page 
may include:

- the README
- Repositories with names, links, sizes, and last-commit dates, and 
	clone addresses.
- Links to the issue trackers and discussion platforms (e.g. lists, 
- License summary (could be in README)
- maybe a link to a paginated Gemini export of `git log`.

In other words, not a *complete* Git experience, but just what's 
appropriate for Gemini.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Gemini mailing list