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

Self-Hosting Git

peppe.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#31

Post by rvz »

As someone who had countlessly saying [0] this to at least to either setup a self-hosted Git repository or use that as a backup almost a year ago since GitHub made teams free [1] I do welcome anyone moving from GitHub to a self hosted solution.

There are are several open-source software projects that have been doing the same thing but on a self-hosted solution. GitLab instance like (GNOME, GTK, etc) or cgit (wireguard, Linux, etc) and so on. ReactOS has a backup mirror of this in case GitHub goes down. [2]

We really need to get away from the idea of 'centralising everything'.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26469749

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22868406

[2] https://github.com/reactos/reactos#code-mirrors

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#32

Post by scaladev »

tgragnato wrote: post #22
funkaster wrote: post #13

Interesting! recently I started self-hosting my personal repos using gogs ( https://gogs.io/ ) it’s really lightweight, and I can evn run it in an arm64 box (the same one I use for my NAS). If you’re looking for a more complete yet still lightweight alternative, give gogs a look.

Does it have a single user mode?

You can disable registration (and authentication through third-party providers) if that's what you mean.

Personally I'd rather use gitea though. It has a more healthy development community (as in more than one developer) and is gaining new functionality at decent pace.

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#33

Post by pekim »

rovr138 wrote: post #18
philshem wrote: post #14

Probably a naive question, but is a git server required? Could one imagine a git repository stored as static files (e.g. in a cloud bucket), and the client then runs git the functionality. Or, a "serverless" git, with cloud functions? (I guess concurrent writing would be an issue.) EDIT: I don't mean ssh'ing to a server with git installed on it. I was thinking of a git-based protocol but based on static files. But th…

The most naive git server is a place you can ssh into that has git installed and disk space. You can set it as a remote. A git server is not required. You can just run it locally or even use another folder as a remote.

This is what I do, on a $5/month digitalocean VPS. It's about as simple as it gets, and is sufficient for my needs.

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#35

Post by XorNot »

Recently I just finished tearing down all my self-host services. Things facing the public internet might be convenient, but heck if I want to face that security nightmare in an ongoing way.

All my git repos now live in a "git" folder I share amongst my fileserver and other machines with syncthing, hosting only the bare repos. If I need pull requests or issue tracking, it's got to be something that goes with the repository - as it always should've been, really.

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#36

Post by tgragnato »

scaladev wrote: post #32
tgragnato wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it have a single user mode?

You can disable registration (and authentication through third-party providers) if that's what you mean. Personally I'd rather use gitea though. It has a more healthy development community (as in more than one developer) and is gaining new functionality at decent pace.

I mean if a single user is integrated in URI paths handling and in the webUI.

Like, can I get domain/repo.git somehow with no user management at all?

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#37

Post by lvass »

djcollier wrote: post #21
lvass wrote: post #12

Git web interfaces should be Bring Your Own, really. I never bother using those as I can have a consistent interface inside emacs. Why should the repository owner choose which interface you view it on?

Because most self-hosted Git services like Gogs and Gitea include features not part of git, such as pull requests, releases, and issues, which require some kind of database.

That's an entirely different concern. If people would not shove their repository alongside those features, instead of relaying those through a standalone and documented manner, I would probably also be easily tracking those features inside my editor.

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#38

Post by naringas »

Shadonototro wrote: post #34
TotempaaltJ wrote: post #25

Does anyone have any thoughts on self-hosting https://sourcehut.org/ ? It seems like a very interesting option to me

they focus on minimalism and they lost in readability and usability

there's an aspect of readability that is in the eye of the reader.

I've been thinking about this a lot. often I hear (specially old-guard) hackers talking about easy and simplicity but they really mean it's familiar to them.

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#39

Post by HelloNurse »

tgragnato wrote: post #22
funkaster wrote: post #13

Interesting! recently I started self-hosting my personal repos using gogs ( https://gogs.io/ ) it’s really lightweight, and I can evn run it in an arm64 box (the same one I use for my NAS). If you’re looking for a more complete yet still lightweight alternative, give gogs a look.

Does it have a single user mode?

If you don't give out credentials Git itself and/or a repository browsing web interface are single user. Did you mean something else?

Re: Self-Hosting Git

#40

Post by stevekemp »

Legogris wrote: post #3
desktopninja wrote: post #2

A worthy self-hostable Git Server too if you'd like to give it a try: https://www.scm-manager.org/

Others with some added functionality like web UI, in increasing line of complexity and features: gitolite gitea, gogs gitlab

Add gitbucket to your list too, it's a single .war file which makes deployment trivial, and it has a simple CI-system built in.
Post reply on HN