A good friend of mine likes to run https://gogs.io/ .. I havent used it heavily but Ive been impressed so far.

I wonder why they advertise the "platform"/implementation language so clearly (in this case Go). It shouldn't matter for the users? I get sceptical, as if the only reason they exist is to provide the same service but in a new implementation.

Performance. That thing is _fast_ when compared to a Ruby-based stack.

Does this really affect end users? In the end, this decision should mostly mean less servers, no...?

Sysadmins are people too :)

I've been using Gogs for personal use for a while. I love its speed and its simplicity.

That said, it's probably not a good fit for most businesses at this point. It's relatively new, and mostly maintained by a single developer, who spent the last summer on vacation.

He's very active when he's around, and almost always working on improving Gogs, but there's a lot of people with features requests (the issue that's always getting comments today is for opening pull requests across branches within a single repository -- i.e. not forking.)

It's a bit of a pity that they don't self host, even if they also have a Github repo.

I was unaware of this. Thanks for the link.

It seems just about everything is being re-written in Go these days...

Go is easier to deploy than Rubby on Fails.

> Go is easier to deploy than Rubby on Fails.

You could have said that without cheapening the level of discourse.

Does that even matter in the world of Docker?

Yes, because not everyone uses Docker yet. Some may never adopt it. So long as that remains a viable path, then the matter of deployment systems and complexity is relevant.

Unless you are smart enough to be a Rubyist.

If you're not you just seem like someone who came to the NodeJS Party late and didn't understand Go is C for gigantic codebases using parallelism. :D

You should also consider Apache Allura (https://allura.apache.org/), Fossil (http://www.fossil-scm.org/), Phabricator (http://phabricator.org/) and GitBucket (https://gitbucket.github.io/gitbucket-news/).

There's also Stash (now renamed to BitBucket Server (edit: fixed name, as pointed out in the reply)). It does not include some of the features (such as issue tracking), and I think rightly so. I haven't used GitLab for maybe 2 years now, so I can't compare the two.

To be clear, it doesn't support issue tracking because it is an Atlassian project. Issue tracking is done through Jira, another product they offer.

Umm no, you are incorrect. Bitbucket does have its own issue tracker like GitHub.. (but it is not turned on by default) and what I am referring to is NOT JIRA Software.

https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucket/enable-an-issue-t...

That looks to be for Bitbucket Cloud. We were discussing Bitbucket Server, the hosted solution.

It's named bitbucket server or something like that - don't confuse it with bitbucket proper.