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

Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

unterwaditzer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 385 posts

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#31

Post by throwa356262 »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #19
InitialPhase55 wrote: post #3

Might be more difficult for people with private repos, as I recall Codeberg doesn't like private repos on their platform.

If you have a server, some cheap VPS will suffice, you can host a private git repo there without installing anything. Run this on your server: git init --bare foo.git and then on your PC you can do this: git clone user@yourserver.com:~/foo.git It's probably a good idea to make a separate user account on the server for it, though.

This is great, but you can also run foregjo (the server behind coderberg) on your VPS.

It is a single binary and I think it is also very light on resources. At least compared to gitlab.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#32

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

999900000999 wrote: post #13

GitHub gives you a lot for "free". In exchange they'll have no problem harvesting your data, and it would really surprise me if they aren't training on private repos too. I guess you can opt out and if they're opt out doesn't work oh well. On the other hand Codeberg doesn't let you create private repositories at all. So Copilot could still legally scrape your open source Codeberg repos. I don't see much of a point fo…

>On the other hand Codeberg doesn't let you create private repositories at all.

are you sure about that? I'm fairly certain my repos on codeberg are all private but I could be mistaken.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#33

Post by ekropotin »

conradev wrote: post #18
unwoven wrote: post #2

> The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos Yup and this is where I pass on anything other than GitHub.

GitHub is free, but the runners are slow and increasingly unreliable. I use Namespace ( https://namespace.so ) and I hook it up both to my personal GitHub as well as my personal Forgejo. I’m in the process of moving from the former to the latter!

I didn’t really realize the degree of their slowness, until I migrated one of the projects on a self-hosted gitea and runners. This setup is just breezing! It’s an order of magnitude faster we’re talking about.

Granted, self-hosting git is not feasible for everyone, but GitHub + self hosted runners seems like a very good option.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#34

Post by ponkpanda »

Repo hosting is the kind of thing that ought to be distributed/federated.

The underlying protocol (git) already has the cryptographic primitives that decouples trust in the commit tree (GPG or SSH signing) with trust in the storage service (i.e. github/codeberg/whatever).

All you need to house centrally is some SSH and/or gpg key server and some means of managing namespaces which would benefit from federation as well.

You'd get the benefits of de-centralisation - no over-reliance on actors like MS or cloudflare. I suppose if enough people fan out to gitlab, bitbucket, self hosting, codeberg, you end up with something that organically approximates a formally decentralised git repo system.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#36

Post by youarewashed »

INTPenis wrote: post #5

Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not…

[flagged]

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#37

Post by sodapopcan »

pferde wrote: post #23
embedding-shape wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm too old school, but both GitHub and Codeberg for me are asyncronous "I want to send/share the code somehow", not "my active workspace I require to do work". But reading > the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. Makes it seem like GitHub/Codeberg has to be online for you to be able to code, is that really the case? If so, how does that hap…

I was shaking my head in disbelief when reading that part too. I mean, git's whole raison d'etre, back when it was introduced, was that you do not need online access to the repo server most of the time.

It's getting even worse if you read the thread about Claude going down the other day. People were having mini panic attacks.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#38

Post by dandellion »

prmoustache wrote: post #25
INTPenis wrote: post #5

Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not…

The whole point of git is to be decentralized so there is no reason for you to not have your current version available even when a remote is offline.

It's also trivial to have multiple remotes, I do in most of my repos. When one has issues I just push to the other instead of both.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#39

Post by mfenniak »

dangus wrote: post #6
unwoven wrote: post #2

> The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos Yup and this is where I pass on anything other than GitHub.

I was going to say that I’d be happy to run a local Mac mini to be a runner but I noticed that Forgejo runners are only built for Linux. It seems like to be a serious CI platform they really need to change Windows and Mac binaries for runners so you can build for those platforms. And this is more of a Forgejo issue than a Codeberg issue specifically. But also, I’d also throw out there the idea that CI doesn’t have to…

Forgejo is committed to using exclusively Free Software for it's own project development. Windows and Mac versions of the Forgejo Runner are built in the project's CI system as a minimal check to ensure platform compatibility, but due to the project's commitment, the project doesn't do integration testing on these platform. And therefore doesn't distribute untested software.

A contributor maintains a tested re-release of Forgejo Runner for Windows: https://github.com/Crown0815/Forgejo-runner-windows-builder

But, pull it down and build it, and it will work.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#40

Post by prmoustache »

woodruffw wrote: post #11

I think evaluating alternatives to GitHub is going to become increasingly important over the coming years. At the same time, I think these kinds of migrations discount how much GitHub has changed the table stakes/raised the bar for what makes a valuable source forge: it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI or accept one that can't natively build for a common set of end-user architectures. This on its own makes me…

> it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI

Why? I know plenty of teams which are fine with repo and CI being separate tools as long as there is integration between the 2.

Post reply on HN