"doesn't support: ... Web UI."
So, it's a git server with an interesting storage layer? Don't get me wrong, that part sounds like it might have been a ton of work to implement, but I think the web UI (pull requests, etc) is a lot of what Github has won on historically.
Basically I don't feel qualified to judge the product itself, but I think positioning it against Github, while popular given the recent hard times, isn't quite correct.
> "doesn't support: ... Web UI."
"Doesn't" doesn't mean "can't". Someone just needs to do the work (with no thanks or pay expected).
edit: the perspective of open source projects has really changed in the last 10 years, from collaboration to nice personal projects now being referred to as "the product".
> "Doesn't" doesn't mean "can't". Someone just needs to do the work
Sure, but isn't that the case for any feature of any software?
I apologize if that’s how my tone has come across. I think I just got distracted by the comparison. I think it’s very cool as a project.