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

Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

gitea.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#41

Post by tomsmeding »

adrianN wrote: post #38
maconic wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Independent of Gitea (which I have nothing to do with nor have any relationship with anyone involved). Your comment "It is worth stressing that you need no software to 'host' git. Every git repository is 'self hosting', by design." worries me. Yes, technically accurate, just as notepad, webstorm, atom, vi, emacs, etc. also don't need any 'host'. If you aren't working with multiple authors, a local laptop with git plu…

Sending patches to mailing lists is a popular way of working that is well supported by git.

Playing the devil's advocate: then you still need somewhere that people can get the current repository state from. This place might not need to do anything with pull requests or any other write action on the repository, but somewhere to clone from is necessary. This would then be the "hosted" repo, and the patches sent via mail are just that, patches.

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#42

Post by tome »

joefreeman wrote: post #36
sago wrote: post #23

Git is a distributed version control system. Every repo can be the master repo. 'Master' is purely a function of convention. It is worth stressing that you need no software to 'host' git. Every git repository is 'self hosting', by design. Tools like this primarily provide a web client to a repository not intended as a working copy, with some optional non-git code collaboration tools, such as issues, and an inbox of p…

Isn't 'origin' (not 'master') the convention you're referring to?

Both "origin" and "master" are conventions. They are promoted by the tooling that gives them a sort of default status.

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#43

Post by tjoff »

sago wrote: post #23

Git is a distributed version control system. Every repo can be the master repo. 'Master' is purely a function of convention. It is worth stressing that you need no software to 'host' git. Every git repository is 'self hosting', by design. Tools like this primarily provide a web client to a repository not intended as a working copy, with some optional non-git code collaboration tools, such as issues, and an inbox of p…

For the vast majority of use cases centralization is an essential feature. You want that single source of truth, then you can have tons of branches etc. outside but without that single source everything falls apart if you are a team of more than one person.

I'd argue that even a single developer really benefit from a "centralized" repository. It helps with maintainability, backups, syncing between machines (oh, my workstation wasn't on, can't update my laptop...).

Pulling code from random developers machines might sound pretty neat in isolation but that is the exception and an edge case to something else. And that something else should most likely be a centralized repository.

When people say they love decentralized version control I often get the impression that what they really love is local commits. There is nothing that says that you can't have local commits in a centralized version control system, it is just that being decentralized is a neat solution for many problems. But that is just an implementation detail that very few could care about, had it not been hyped to death.

Now this is something entirely different than the whole developer community putting everything in one basket (github), that's the only type of centralization worth worrying about.

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#44

Post by Confiks »

marenkay wrote: post #19
PaulRobinson wrote: post #7

Entertainingly the code is hosted on github. :-) I'd have more confidence in it if it could self-host and I was able to see gitea inside of a gitea instance and that was the main workflow. Like this, it feels like maintainers aren't prepared to eat their own dog food just yet. That's fine, but I'll take a pass until that's fixed.

See https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029 - self hosting as almost there.

An insightful comment linked to from that issue: https://lobste.rs/s/gokjbo/gitea_1_1_0_released#c_dg9pwe

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#45

Post by maconic »

tomsmeding wrote: post #41
adrianN wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending patches to mailing lists is a popular way of working that is well supported by git.

Playing the devil's advocate: then you still need somewhere that people can get the current repository state from. This place might not need to do anything with pull requests or any other write action on the repository, but somewhere to clone from is necessary. This would then be the "hosted" repo, and the patches sent via mail are just that, patches.

Exactly :)

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#46

Post by maconic »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #7

Entertainingly the code is hosted on github. :-) I'd have more confidence in it if it could self-host and I was able to see gitea inside of a gitea instance and that was the main workflow. Like this, it feels like maintainers aren't prepared to eat their own dog food just yet. That's fine, but I'll take a pass until that's fixed.

Time for a decentralized blockchain of code commits...

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#47

Post by dkersten »

maconic wrote: post #40
adrianN wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending patches to mailing lists is a popular way of working that is well supported by git.

Fair enough, but there is still a hosted solution, it's just hosted email instead :) I know Linux used that approach, which is seemingly ironic since Linus made git, and previously used BitKeeper. There seemed to be some problem that emailing patches to a mailing list wasn't solving to motivate the invention of git.

You can email git patches though (which is essentially what pull requests are, really, just using a different interface)

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#48

Post by adam-a »

maconic wrote: post #32
sago wrote: post #23

Git is a distributed version control system. Every repo can be the master repo. 'Master' is purely a function of convention. It is worth stressing that you need no software to 'host' git. Every git repository is 'self hosting', by design. Tools like this primarily provide a web client to a repository not intended as a working copy, with some optional non-git code collaboration tools, such as issues, and an inbox of p…

Independent of Gitea (which I have nothing to do with nor have any relationship with anyone involved). Your comment "It is worth stressing that you need no software to 'host' git. Every git repository is 'self hosting', by design." worries me. Yes, technically accurate, just as notepad, webstorm, atom, vi, emacs, etc. also don't need any 'host'. If you aren't working with multiple authors, a local laptop with git plu…

I took the comment as referring to hosting just a git repo on a public server. If you are working on a private project a simple option is to get a cheap VPS, give all your developers user accounts, and clone the repo into a shared folder. Everyone can pull and push with ssh and you can use Trello or whatever for issue tracking. Certainly that doesn't cover every use case, but it's worth being aware of the option and not feeling that you can't use git unless you pay github or spend a lot of time setting up a self-hosted clone of github.

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#49

Post by vetinari »

majewsky wrote: post #25
giancarlostoro wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it had to start out somehow. The original project started off on GitHub so it just kinda stayed there. It does cost money to host these type of applications and its easier to have contributions on GitHub since it doesn't require most people to register a new account. It certainly has trade offs for sure.

> It does cost money to host these type of applications I'm hosting Gitea (together with around 10 other services) on a 1/1 instance (1 CPU, 1 GB RAM) at Hetzner. Those can be had for € 2,50 per month. > its easier to have contributions on GitHub since it doesn't require most people to register a new account That's the big issue.

>> its easier to have contributions on GitHub since it doesn't require most people to register a new account

> That's the big issue.

I don't think so: Github can work as OAuth provider, Gitea supports OAuth integration, so the self-hosted instance can still authenticate people using their Github accounts.

Re: Gitea – Alternative to GitLab and GitHub

#50

Post by giancarlostoro »

tjoff wrote: post #43
sago wrote: post #23

Git is a distributed version control system. Every repo can be the master repo. 'Master' is purely a function of convention. It is worth stressing that you need no software to 'host' git. Every git repository is 'self hosting', by design. Tools like this primarily provide a web client to a repository not intended as a working copy, with some optional non-git code collaboration tools, such as issues, and an inbox of p…

For the vast majority of use cases centralization is an essential feature. You want that single source of truth, then you can have tons of branches etc. outside but without that single source everything falls apart if you are a team of more than one person. I'd argue that even a single developer really benefit from a "centralized" repository. It helps with maintainability, backups, syncing between machines (oh, my wo…

Heck even torrents which are distributed needed a central server to connect through for ages. There's definitely a benefit to having a central server that aids the sea of clients / servers to communicate.
Post reply on HN