The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub • Hacker News Board

Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub

#131

Post by 0x6c6f6c » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

macromaniac wrote: post #77

sametmax wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaaah, the infamous "10 minutes" sale pitch. I think it's getting 10 minutes years old to this day.

It doesnt take long to set up iirc, the problem when I used gitlab was it was resource intensive. It somehow takes a 10$mo instance when it should be able to run as a side process on a 2.50$mo server imo. 10$mo was the same pricing as github so it didn't make sense to use.

Honestly for resource efficient Git service people should use (and I've seen it shared places lately) Gitea or Gogs. Gitea is a fork of Gogs but picked up pace and has multiple maintainers who care a lot for it. It uses minimal resources and looks good. $2.50 server on Vultr with 512MB RAM should cover it.

Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub

#132

Post by forgottenpass » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #32

chatmasta wrote: post #21

I’ve always thought of version control systems and issue trackers as separate products. GitHub just happens to implement them both in one place. As others are alluding to in the comments, I’m highly skeptical of coupling the issue tracker and other non-VCS features with git. A far better solution would be to keep them decoupled, but easily pluggable and extendable. In fact, this is basically the status quo with any i…

I feel like the HN community fails repeatedly to really grok this concept. They focus on the negatives of having a single dominant player for a service (with worries about monopolistic practices and stagnation), but completely ignore WHY these single providers become dominant. There are HUGE network-effect benefits to having a single dominant provider. Right now, if I am looking for a code library, I pretty much only…

>I feel like the HN community fails repeatedly to really grok this concept

No. Two weeks ago if you took the temperature of the crowd it would seem dead set on singing the praises of github centralization, encourage others to put all their eggs in that basket, and pretending like open source doesn't exist unless on github.

The popular conversations here have shifted. It probably indicates some shift in what the audience really thinks, but mostly just shows whats popular to bikeshed this week.

Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub

#133

Post by Nadya » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #128

Nadya wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I just need a git repository, I store it locally. Git is a DVCS for a reason -- most single person projects don't need a remote anyway. I use a remote as an easier-to-maintain-and-test backup than trying to maintain a mirrored local repository on another drive.

> I use a remote as an easier-to-maintain-and-test backup than trying to maintain a mirrored local repository on another drive. You should really consider getting a good backup solution, like Tarsnap or Backblaze, to follow from the "two is one and one is none" principle of backups. That is, if you haven't already.

I already use Backblaze as it's important to have off-site backups whenever possible. However, needing to wait several weeks to download my data is not always an option. I'm a digital hoarder and by that I mean I have >30TB of data. My backup solution for most things is 3 local copies and 1 remote copy. Files I don't deem important enough to pay to store 3 times locally aren't backed up locally but still are backed up with Backblaze. Some things are easier to entrust to someone else (eg: git repos) than trying to maintain local mirrors. Also a Backblaze backup of a git repository doesn't do me much good if I want to quickly grab it (talking minutes to download from Gitlab instead of hours/days from Backblaze) so it makes more sense to use Gitlab as a remote so I can quickly grab it if I lose my local copy.

All of that aside, it's still easier to maintain-and-test a remote repository than to maintain-and-test local repositories.

Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub

#134

Post by aassddffasdf » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #126

aassddffasdf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intentionally leave some of my projects in a super-raw state as a way to obfuscate their true intended purpose; utilizing a public [but obscured] repo as a quasi-private one. :) I realize not everyone feels this way, but I do.

Why not just host them somewhere private repos are free of charge? (i.e. GitLab, Bitbucket)

It's like putting something on the blockchain-- I want it there so that I can point to it from the future as "my work" but without attracting too much attention in the meantime.

If the attention comes, no worry. If it doesn't, perfect.

Re: The single most important criteria when replacing GitHub

#135

Post by aassddffasdf » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #127

aassddffasdf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intentionally leave some of my projects in a super-raw state as a way to obfuscate their true intended purpose; utilizing a public [but obscured] repo as a quasi-private one. :) I realize not everyone feels this way, but I do.

There are a lot more eyes on those repositories than you think. Things like misplaced API tokens are vacuumed up nearly instantly. You'd be much, much better off hosting private stuff on GitLab or BitBucket.

I do have the really secret stuff on BitBucket. :)