Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 468 posts

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

#381

Post by NewJazz »

dboreham wrote: post #64
cobertos wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's based on act[0] so it's quite like GitHub actions but not completely [1]. I found in the current version of Forgejo the most secure way to set it up was just to put the runner on a different host. There's a Docker in Docker setup [2] that was challenging to get working correctly but still didn't quite feel secure... After setting it all up, I'm convinced GitHub actions as a concept is flawed. I wish the communit…

Agreed. GitHub Actions feels like someone's science project created while on a mushroom trip. Really you just want a thing that executes a shell script in a runner.

It's like they looked at ansible and said needs more yaml templating and less idempotency.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

#382

Post by Melatonic »

rhdunn wrote: post #134

It depends on what you are after? 1. Do you want something that works and feels like GitHub? -- Forgejo and Gitea are good for this. 2. Do you want a place to host git repositories with minimal hassle? -- GitLab, CodeBerg, and others are available. 3. Do you have your own hosting infrastructure? You could use gitolite and CGit/GitWeb on that hosting platform or local hardware. 4. Do you just want to host repositories…

7. Do you want to impress the old Solaris admin that still wants to live like it's 1997? Use SVN hosted on an ancient Thinkpad with everything hosted on an ancient spinning disk external hooked to eSATA

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

#383

Post by Melatonic »

Bnjoroge wrote: post #272
srcreigh wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. MicroVMs make hosting runners pretty straightforward. I had codex make a forgejo runner controller which pulls forgejo actions and creates kubernetes jobs for them. It was a bit of a pain to configure firecracker with k3s. It really can’t be understated how much easier hosting CI is with microvms as the security boundary.

Agree. I'm always surprised Github still uses huge fat VMs. I imagine this is one of the things that make it much painful at scale. The tricky part with microvms are getting them to run cross-platform. We use an awesome project called smolvm that builds on libkrun and makes this alot easier. As an aside, how have forgejo actions worked for you in practice?

Any other recommendations for microvm ? Need to mess around with them again. Always seemed like the future

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

#384

Post by sisve »

sandcat_ wrote: post #243
polycaster wrote: post #8

https://forgejo.org/

I recently set this up on my homelab, not really expecting to switch to it, more out of interest. But wow, after I saw how unbelievably fast it was, I’ve moved everything over. I’ve now set it up to mirror things automatically to Github if I want to make them public. Using Github at work is painful in comparison. (Also literally just this morning we’ve had to delay a release due to Github being down.)

Have been running self-hosted forgejo for a while now. Work's like a charm. Easy to use with LLM

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

#385

Post by zserge »

I'm building my own - https://git.zserge.com/fierj - and for a few weeks it's hosting itself. Still working on patches workflow and CI, but it's quite usable already. I try to make it "minimally federated" - only threads (issues/discussions etc) are federated via ActivityPub, for PR there is old-school patches workflow, for CI just chroot and a shell script. A lightweight personal git forge in ~4KLOC. Can't say everyone should use it and can't recomment it, but building a personal forge is very realistic. Or you can run cgit as a frontend to your git remote on a server.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to GitHub

#390

Post by mkesper »

enriquto wrote: post #51
petcat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does sourcehut still require patches via email instead of "pull requests"? That was the deal breaker for me last time I looked at it.

> Does sourcehut still require patches via email I'd guess the technically correct answer to this question is "yes". But sourcehut has very good mailing list support, that is essentially equivalent to github pull requests. Still, I find the wording of your question a bit prejudiced... as if I asked "does github still require pull requests via a proprietary interface instead of just sending the patches?"

Come on, there were people using Gerrit instances (which had better PR UI than GH implementation) for good reasons even before GitHub became popular.
Post reply on HN