Which GitHub features would you consider a blocker for migrating to a different code forge, and in what order do you prioritize them? Context: I am heads down building a code forge (<a href=“https://juju.bi/” rel=“ugc”>https://juju.bi/</a>) based on three ideas:
- Code collaboration part should work offline
- Should be compatible with GitHub API (like how some services are considered S3 compatible)
- Support <code>change-id</code> based features (ex: Jujutsu’s evolog)
I shipped a super-early version that I am currently dogfooding. <a href=“https://juju.bi/changelog/2026-07-01-alpha-release” rel=“ugc”>https://juju.bi/changelog/2026-07-01-alpha-release</a> I am currently focused on improving the experience for small teams working on private repos. I would like to polish the overall product before thinking about public repos. (A lot of great forges exist for public repos right now).
You must log in or # to comment.
For starters, the ineffably marvelous GitHub effort within may suggest a number of features missing in Codeberg (yet existing in Gitea), including:
- Adequate automation for pull-requests and Git tree changes;
- Action workflows of at least remote similar complexity;
- Private EMail addresses for Git commits;
- More compact theme;
- Star categories;Private EMail addresses for Git commits
Fucking well yes. I guess it’s based on git and that’s not a thing, but dammit that’s annoying. I just blackhole my commits to public projects behind a fake GH account and email. Which doesn’t encourage a lot of followup on my drive-bys, unfortunately.
