Love sourcehut and want to see them succeed, but their build service (despite having some very cool ideas like allowing you to SSH into your build container) is pretty barebones / lacking compared to GH/GitHub actions. You either get no task parallelism (all your tasks are in one manifest) or you get up to N=4 parallelism (you have four manifests). As far as I can tell, you can’t specify job dependencies beyond just “when this job finishes, trigger this next job by deploying a manifest”. No build caching, and artifact sharing felt like a kludge.

Thanks for the callout: we’ve been reimagining code forges by making them irrelevant with tools and tiny services like: https://pgit.pico.sh (static site generator for git) and https://pr.pico.sh (pastebin for git collab)

They are still a WIP but it’s on our roadmap to continue to improve.

Tried tangled, quite like the idea! The fact you can always switch to a self-hosted knot is nice.

I was looking to self-host forgejo but I didn't want to expose any SSH, and needing to be on a tailscale network just to develop also seemed flakey.

I'll stay on codeberg for now and check out tangled from time to time, because I think this is a good use of ATProto

I’d love see Tangled succeed because it strikes a good balance of UX and features. Sadly, there’s no clear pricing story around managed solution. They are also VC funded so they can follow the “journey of VC backed org” anytime.