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

GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#41

Post by Macha »

ravetcofx wrote: post #20
YaBa wrote: post #10

Use locally installed Gitea. I only use Github for public forks and nothing else. Personal projects are all on private Gitea.

Why did Gitea seem to win out in the self-hosted space over GitLab?

Gitea is simple to package and run, so I just install a single package and enable a systemd service.

Gitlab is really designed to run on kubernetes, and while there's plenty of self hosters willing to run overkill infra locally, has proved to be enough of a pain for enough people to run that it limited its growth in that space.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#42

Post by foolswisdom »

ukuina wrote: post #34
remram wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the first platform to get federated merge requests will win it all.

Can you elaborate on what that means and how it improves repos?

Currently, if a repo is on github, and you develop a patch on a fork on gitlab, you can't just click a button to open a pr, the way you could of both upstream and fork were using the same provider. Federated PRs would be the capability for one provider to "talk" to another to be able to pull your patch from the other provider.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#43

Post by remram »

k8svet wrote: post #31
remram wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question was: what did Forgejo do? If the software is still developed in Gitea's repository, and all Forgejo does is download the source from gitea.com, rename it, and post it on forgejo.org... how does that help the users? If there exists some Gitea features that are not available open source ("open core")... how does having Forgejo help? Unless they provide those features, the situation remains unchanged. Until…

Luckily Forgejo has a blog with a days-old blog post that spells this out. The winds are clearly blowing in Forgejo's direction despite some doubt from me, early on.

Did you get an answer to my question there? I didn't...

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#44

Post by remram »

ukuina wrote: post #34
remram wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the first platform to get federated merge requests will win it all.

Can you elaborate on what that means and how it improves repos?

Being able to host software on my own instance, without requiring everybody else to sign up there to contribute.

I like to self-host, but I don't want to be sysadmin to a public service, and deal with account deletion, password resets, ...

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#45

Post by remram »

cimnine wrote: post #36
remram wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the first platform to get federated merge requests will win it all.

Have a look at GitLab's plans then: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/architecture/blueprints/activity_... Edit: Better link

There are many plans

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#46

Post by siamese_puff »

remram wrote: post #27
siamese_puff wrote: post #22

Update: After HN post, GitHub emailed me instantly telling me their algorithm mistakenly banned me and they can’t tell me why or which organizations were affected.

Are you still migrating away?

I'm going to self-host Gitea, which has been on my todo list for awhile.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#47

Post by gkbrk »

remram wrote: post #28
jjmarr wrote: post #11

Now is a great time to switch to Gerrit.

As far as I'm concerned, the first platform to get federated merge requests will win it all.

Merge requests are already federated on any platform using Git, just email an author.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#48

Post by RecycledEle »

Spammers have reason to target GitHub: GitHub is listed on many resumes, so it's worth money.

The problem comes when social engineering spammers are investigated. They blame others, and get those others delisted from GitHub.

I suspect that, like eBay, CraigsList, SpamHaus, and (R)eddit, GitHub's spam fighters are now completely coned by the spammers so that they only shut down honest people.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#49

Post by leros »

photoGrant wrote: post #2

They did the same accidentally to the co-founder https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/1754610843361362360 Once I'd seen that, I doubled down on my self hosted GitLab and never looked back. GitHub can be a mirror for public good, but it's no castle I want to be a prisoner of.

This is how I do it. Everything is in GitLab and I mirror a few repos to GitHub for public consumption and issue tracking.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#50

Post by lamontcg »

amerkhalid wrote: post #40
unixfox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't tell it because that would make the life easier to spammers.

Not an excuse to not explain what happened. If they want to maintain trust, they should give some explanation.

We need some kind of anti-kafka internet bill of rights which forces platforms to disclose why you've been banned at a granular level of detail. This would make their job harder to keep up with spammers/abuse and might cut into their profits, but I royally don't give any fucks about that.
Post reply on HN