11–20 of 124 posts
Because of so many GitHub problems, I'm adding GitLab.com and Codeberg.org. Setup is simply 3 steps: 1. Sign up on each service, ideally with the same username. 2. For each repo you want to share, create the same repo name as a blank repo; do not automatically create a README. 3. Edit your local file .git/config to add push URLs, then push as usual. Example: [remote "origin"] url = git@github.com:foo/bar.git pushurl…
Because of so many GitHub problems, I'm adding GitLab.com and Codeberg.org. Setup is simply 3 steps: 1. Sign up on each service, ideally with the same username. 2. For each repo you want to share, create the same repo name as a blank repo; do not automatically create a README. 3. Edit your local file .git/config to add push URLs, then push as usual. Example: [remote "origin"] url = git@github.com:foo/bar.git pushurl…
And for fun, just spin up a VPS and initialize some bare repos there.
Usually the argument is for scalability, but a single VM for personal use doesn't need that, and even if you do want that, you'll need more than a bare repo.
What happened to hacker culture? Did everyone (or enough) just sell out? It’s fascinating to me that the people who know the most about tech keep deciding over and over to give something to some corporation and inevitably it becomes an issue. I guess ease of use and freemium really trumps everything; I expect more from smart people but money talks.
Because of so many GitHub problems, I'm adding GitLab.com and Codeberg.org. Setup is simply 3 steps: 1. Sign up on each service, ideally with the same username. 2. For each repo you want to share, create the same repo name as a blank repo; do not automatically create a README. 3. Edit your local file .git/config to add push URLs, then push as usual. Example: [remote "origin"] url = git@github.com:foo/bar.git pushurl…
These days, the problem with cloud-hosted Git platforms is not where to push your code. Replicating repositories across multiple providers is relatively easy, and Git has always been good at that. The harder problem is that successful teams end up accumulating a lot more than source code around their repositories, and much of that information becomes just as important as the code itself.
Bug reports, feature requests, documentation, design discussions, code reviews, project planning, CI/CD configuration, and years of historical context all tend to live inside platforms such as GitHub. While the Git repository itself is portable, all of that surrounding data is often much harder to migrate cleanly, especially if a team has built workflows and integrations around a particular provider.
That, in my view, is one of the main reasons so many companies are heavily dependent on GitHub. Moving the code elsewhere is usually straightforward; moving the entire development process, with all of its history, metadata, and institutional knowledge, is not. When GitHub goes down, the question is often less about where you can push your next commit and more about how easily you can recreate the rest of the environment that your team relies on every day.
What happened to hacker culture? Did everyone (or enough) just sell out? It’s fascinating to me that the people who know the most about tech keep deciding over and over to give something to some corporation and inevitably it becomes an issue. I guess ease of use and freemium really trumps everything; I expect more from smart people but money talks.
Nobody wants to pay for git hosting. Seems like nobody wants to self-host it either.
Heck, GH Stars are used as a vanity metric for a lot of projects.
Self hosted gitlab is a dream, no surprises ever, exactly how your repos are supposed to work.
What happened to hacker culture? Did everyone (or enough) just sell out? It’s fascinating to me that the people who know the most about tech keep deciding over and over to give something to some corporation and inevitably it becomes an issue. I guess ease of use and freemium really trumps everything; I expect more from smart people but money talks.
Just because you're a developer doesn't mean you're a hacker or you care for the craft on any level.
The wild west days are over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody wants to pay for git hosting. Seems like nobody wants to self-host it either.
Codeberg and Gitlab exist though. The problem is the inertia. Tons of repositories in GitHub from way before MS acquired them, which makes most people use GitHub, which makes most software projects choose GitHub. Heck, GH Stars are used as a vanity metric for a lot of projects.
Soooo...
Let me preface this by saying this is an old (so things are different) anecdote (which is not the singular of data), but...
a) I had never heard of codeberg.
b) My company used an on-prem gitlab instance, and it sucked donkey dicks.
For example, the equivalent of just putting a statically generated site into github pages required running a fucking production pipe.
You should make the easy things easy and the hard things possible. Making the easy things hard is an immediate red flag.
> The problem is the inertia.
Oh, don't worry about that. Github is working diligently to fix that problem. The question is, are the alternatives worthwhile?