New website dillo-browser.org
Hi, I just wanted to announce that we now have a new website: https://dillo-browser.org/ As well as a new git web frontend (cgit) that works well from Dillo (after some CSS fixes), so we can link to a given commit or source file: https://git.dillo-browser.org/ I'm also working on migrating the issues away from GitHub, so we can host them ourselves. Same for the CI infrastructure. The server is located on EU soil and the costs are fully covered by the donations to the project. Thanks to all donors that made it possible! I hope we can manage to keep it working for some more years, but I still plan to make some backups in other forges so we don't end up with the same single point of failure problem of the old server. Best, Rodrigo.
Hi, Congratulations for the new website! Leaving GitHub was a great idea, indeed. Thanks to all donors and developers who made it possible! Best regards, Xavi On 27 September 2025 16:03:40 CEST, Rodrigo Arias <rodarima@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to announce that we now have a new website:
As well as a new git web frontend (cgit) that works well from Dillo (after some CSS fixes), so we can link to a given commit or source file:
https://git.dillo-browser.org/
I'm also working on migrating the issues away from GitHub, so we can host them ourselves. Same for the CI infrastructure.
The server is located on EU soil and the costs are fully covered by the donations to the project. Thanks to all donors that made it possible!
I hope we can manage to keep it working for some more years, but I still plan to make some backups in other forges so we don't end up with the same single point of failure problem of the old server.
Best, Rodrigo. _______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list -- dillo-dev@mailman3.com To unsubscribe send an email to dillo-dev-leave@mailman3.com
Bravo Rodrigo, it looks great! Long live Dillo! Cheers, Alex Rodrigo Arias <rodarima@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to announce that we now have a new website:
As well as a new git web frontend (cgit) that works well from Dillo (after some CSS fixes), so we can link to a given commit or source file:
https://git.dillo-browser.org/
I'm also working on migrating the issues away from GitHub, so we can host them ourselves. Same for the CI infrastructure.
The server is located on EU soil and the costs are fully covered by the donations to the project. Thanks to all donors that made it possible!
I hope we can manage to keep it working for some more years, but I still plan to make some backups in other forges so we don't end up with the same single point of failure problem of the old server.
Best, Rodrigo.
Rodrigo Arias wrote:
As well as a new git web frontend (cgit) that works well from Dillo (after some CSS fixes), so we can link to a given commit or source file:
This command works to change the Git repo URL if you've already cloned from GitHub: git remote set-url origin https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo It did take quite a while to respond to "git pull" after that.
I'm also working on migrating the issues away from GitHub, so we can host them ourselves. Same for the CI infrastructure.
Great to hear. "Not hosted on GitHub" is a rare feature for Web browsers now and I'm glad Dillo is reimplementing it. :)
Hi Kevin, On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 09:22:13AM +1000, Kevin Koster wrote:
Rodrigo Arias wrote:
As well as a new git web frontend (cgit) that works well from Dillo (after some CSS fixes), so we can link to a given commit or source file:
This command works to change the Git repo URL if you've already cloned from GitHub:
git remote set-url origin https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo
It did take quite a while to respond to "git pull" after that.
I'm not sure if there is a problem on our end or is it expected to take long. Here is what I see if I clone the repo from our cgit and github in my old netbook: % time git clone https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo/ /tmp/1 Cloning into '/tmp/1'... Fetching objects: 27292, done. git clone https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo/ /tmp/1 29.28s user 4.30s system 104% cpu 32.080 total % time git clone https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo /tmp/2 Cloning into '/tmp/2'... remote: Enumerating objects: 27353, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (2266/2266), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (497/497), done. remote: Total 27353 (delta 2067), reused 1769 (delta 1769), pack-reused 25087 (from 3) Receiving objects: 100% (27353/27353), 83.77 MiB | 5.37 MiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (19766/19766), done. git clone https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo /tmp/2 34.44s user 9.13s system 163% cpu 26.682 total In the cgit case, it takes a while to output the "Fetching objects: 27292, done".
I'm also working on migrating the issues away from GitHub, so we can host them ourselves. Same for the CI infrastructure.
Great to hear. "Not hosted on GitHub" is a rare feature for Web browsers now and I'm glad Dillo is reimplementing it. :)
I'm still thinking what to do with the CI runner, as before we used to build Dillo with Mac OS and Cygwin in Windows, but now I only have Linux/BSD machines available. I would imagine that we can lower the support level in those platforms to "was known to work", but I would like to avoid that. Not sure if someone has a better suggestion. Bonus: WIP bug tracker https://bug.dillo-browser.org/ Best, Rodrigo.
Rodrigo Arias wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 09:22:13AM +1000, Kevin Koster wrote:
This command works to change the Git repo URL if you've already cloned from GitHub:
git remote set-url origin https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo
It did take quite a while to respond to "git pull" after that.
I'm not sure if there is a problem on our end or is it expected to take long. Here is what I see if I clone the repo from our cgit and github in my old netbook:
Same here, the total clone time seems similar to GitHub. "git pull" is now responding much quicker too: $ time git pull Fetching objects: 536, done. From https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo * [new branch] ci -> origin/ci * [new branch] mouse-back-forward -> origin/mouse-back-forward Already up to date. real 0m 4.76s user 0m 0.20s sys 0m 0.26s But there were changes pulled in last time whereas now it's "already up to date". I know last time I was sure Git had hung and started writing a post warning about that, checking back just in case, and Git eventually finished while I was writing. At least a minute or two for an operation that's usually fairly immediate. It _could_ have coincidentally been a network issue or a problem reading/writing storage on my end (actually eMMC flash) causing the delay I suppose. Anyway so long as it works it's not really a problem for me.
Bonus: WIP bug tracker https://bug.dillo-browser.org/
Excellent! Although apparantly Dillo can't find a ← character in the font I'm using (which is probably my problem, I like lean font packages).
Hi, On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:08:49AM +1000, Kevin Koster wrote:
I know last time I was sure Git had hung and started writing a post warning about that, checking back just in case, and Git eventually finished while I was writing. At least a minute or two for an operation that's usually fairly immediate.
I think the problem is that it is downloading a single big 77MiB git object (pack) with all the contents and somehow this causes git to not print anything until the download finishes. On the GitHub side, it downloads multiple files and knows how many there are. I'm not sure what is causing this. If I use HTTP, this is what I see with -vv: % git clone -vv https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo Cloning into 'dillo'... POST git-upload-pack (181 bytes) want 29a46a2da7e9350a1252e30aea3c8294097f63a4 (HEAD) want e14906ab1407f800e3a06d57c838a2887cf65a2f (refs/heads/3.0.5) ... want e637d2158a9ef1cb82273f54d9d68d0b05dbb6f6 (refs/tags/v3.2.0) want 5338882730f1098becb199fc629e0adf22e94461 (refs/tags/v3.2.0-rc1) POST git-upload-pack (gzip 1808 to 934 bytes) remote: Enumerating objects: 27353, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (2266/2266), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (497/497), done. ^Cceiving objects: 1% (274/27353) But our server doesn't do that via HTTPS: % git clone -vv https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo Cloning into 'dillo'... got f57e4fe95b2c0cfd2e966bcebdd6d21fd26e71bb walk f57e4fe95b2c0cfd2e966bcebdd6d21fd26e71bb Getting alternates list for https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo got f48288b62f7e4d1e17cf06796d8738bd01de3746 Getting pack list for https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo Getting index for pack dc484618e815fff3daa3971cb11b4b9457361592 got d5b3971fbd3b685d458d3e07061cfc5a01c31db7 got 8cd2d04fc6ed054b999744cedc0b29141d8fa747 got cb7820ed982df6e6dcac16ddd92eed8b8667f0d1 got 3a9d001498ca0c211431fd08bfce014c20f6a8f1 got e637d2158a9ef1cb82273f54d9d68d0b05dbb6f6 got db482d4c2b517270c7e1da03a090e6e293893139 got 5338882730f1098becb199fc629e0adf22e94461 Getting pack dc484618e815fff3daa3971cb11b4b9457361592 which contains 29a46a2da7e9350a1252e30aea3c8294097f63a4 ^here takes a lot of time However, via ssh I get immediate feedback: % git clone -vv XXXX@dillo-browser.org:dillo Cloning into 'dillo'... Server version is git/2.47.3 Server supports shallow Server supports multi_ack_detailed Server supports side-band-64k Server supports thin-pack Server supports no-progress Server supports include-tag Server supports ofs-delta Server supports deepen-since Server supports deepen-not Server supports deepen-relative want f57e4fe95b2c0cfd2e966bcebdd6d21fd26e71bb (HEAD) want f57e4fe95b2c0cfd2e966bcebdd6d21fd26e71bb (refs/heads/ci) want 29a46a2da7e9350a1252e30aea3c8294097f63a4 (refs/heads/master) want f48288b62f7e4d1e17cf06796d8738bd01de3746 (refs/heads/mouse-back-forward) want adb3d5c87fae7196dbae6c35828434cdcd6227a4 (refs/tags/2.1-noCss) want ce8e972a10c9340312f21511de053242dad3f5db (refs/tags/release-2_0) ... want e637d2158a9ef1cb82273f54d9d68d0b05dbb6f6 (refs/tags/v3.2.0) want 5338882730f1098becb199fc629e0adf22e94461 (refs/tags/v3.2.0-rc1) done remote: Enumerating objects: 27300, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (27300/27300), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (6518/6518), done. ^Cceiving objects: 11% (3003/27300) There may be something we can tune in cgit or maybe in the git repository to make it faster. I'll need to dive a bit more on how git works under the hood to fix it. Best, Rodrigo.
Hi,
There may be something we can tune in cgit or maybe in the git repository to make it faster. I'll need to dive a bit more on how git works under the hood to fix it.
This seems to be caused by cgit not implementing the git protocol v2, which allows downloading only the needed objects. There is a patch available, but never got merged. I might try to add it to our cgit or configure the http server to send git requests directly to a git server. Tracked here: https://bug.dillo-browser.org/504/ Best, Rodrigo.
participants (4)
-
a1ex＠dismail.de -
Kevin Koster -
Rodrigo Arias -
Xavier Del Campo Romero