What I'm building: a hosted home for Fossil repos. Same onramp feel as a code host, but each project is a single self-contained SQLite file you can clone, email, or walk away with. The open source omnibus (Django + Postgres + Redis + Caddy + Litestream-to-S3) is at fossilrepo.io. The hosted version will be in private beta soon.
My rough thesis: 1. Fossil is already federated by design. Every clone is the entire project: issues, wiki, forum, history, code. That's the federation discussion happening on the front page right now, just with a 15+ year-old tool the SQLite project itself uses. If fossil clone works between any two hosts, lock-in basically dies.
2. AI agents need integrated context. A Fossil repo is one queryable SQLite file. An agent reads code + tickets + wiki + history with SELECT * instead of 47-odd GraphQL calls. RAG and MCP setups become trivial. Also has a cli tool thats super easy to use.
3. Small-but-serious teams are underserved. Git+GitHub won the macro market and that's not changing. But the 1-50 person team where the spec, the tickets, the wiki, and the code all belong in the same place... the integrated model is just better/easier.
Things I'm worried about: - Network effect — a repo isn't very useful if nobody else can find it - Inertia — Git muscle memory is hard to break - Codeberg / Forgejo / Gitea are all credible — what's the right wedge, if any? is this a solution that anyone wants?
I'd rather hear it from HN now than after we launch. Three honest questions: - Is this interesting, or am I solving a problem nobody has? - What would make you actually switch? - What am I missing?
Also stuck on the name. Both domains land on the same page, so vote whichever you'd actually use: https://fossilforge.io or https://fossilhub.io (I also have the .ai versions but .io feels more developer-y)
jdw64•4h ago
As you said, Fossil may provide a more unified context for AI. But GitHub’s biggest advantage is that it effectively functions as a developer portfolio.
Federation is not really a buying reason for most developers. The core question is exposure. Git itself is distributed, so why did everything centralize around GitHub? The same thing happened with npm. Centralization is, in practice, something users often want.
So I think the real opportunity is not simply “GitHub should be replaced.” It is to target moments when there is already public pressure or momentum for teams to leave GitHub, and then focus on larger projects or teams that might actually move.
I suppose this is a kind of herd effect. Honestly, my main concern is whether the large teams capable of moving others will actually overcome GitHub’s inertia.
The idea is good, but I do not believe that the better technical solution necessarily wins. Also, from what I have observed, many open-source teams are actually hostile to the idea of AI context, so advertising the AI angle too strongly might even hurt adoption.
I think the killer feature matters more. If this is simply “hosted Fossil,” then the question becomes: what concrete problem does it solve?
At least from my perspective, your target audience and your proposed killer feature, AI-friendly context, do not seem fully aligned.
ragelink•2h ago