I just recently moved a couple tiny projects from GitHub to Codeberg. My review: really easy to set up and get going with. I noticed Codeberg isn't as snappy as GitHub, but it's barely noticeable and I'm not paying any money for it anyway so I can't complain.
Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
131–140 of 380 posts
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#132[deleted]
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#133Everyone seems to be leaving GitHub, and forgetting the entire spirit of what git is in my eyes. Git was always meant to be decentralized, the problem here is that all the tooling around git was centralized to GitHub because it was a cleaner experience, they scaled nicely, and were properly maintained. I would prefer to still see mirrors on GitHub that are auto-synched because I've seen projects for years either self…
While I'm not forgetting the spirit of what Git is, I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. So, no thanks. I'll not be committing any personal code there anymore. And no, I don't care for the social aspects either. Discoverability, stars, and AI bot powered issue bombardment. I'm fine like this. Also, remember, "Open Source is not about You".
I mean, I never put my code on GitHub, but other people put it there, as they use GitHub: you can't not use GitHub. (Hell: even closed source projects, even ones that were never distributed even as a binary, if the code leaks, end up mirrored on GitHub.)
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also have a self hosted Foregejo on a Pi (but probably not much longer) that acts as a mirror of my GitHub. The main issues I keep facing are: - Repositories seem to mirror fine for a few weeks and stop. Pretty useless. I have a PAT token for it that does not expire, and yet it seems to claim otherwise, despite the token working elsewhere when I test it. - Sometimes there is nothing in the logs, sometimes it's the…
Probably the mirror? I have zero problems like that on my Forgejo Pi setup. I am not mirroring
SD card seems the likeliest culprit. Some of them are really bad quality.
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#135Consider Fossil[1], which packages the entire repository state—code history, wiki, tickets, forum—into a single file, and that state gets cloned. When/if you need to change hosting providers, you get to lose zero data in Fossil because of it. [1] https://fossil-scm.org/
I considered Fossil several years ago and while it's really cool (everything being integrated is awesome), I don't like Fossil from a philosophical perspective. There's no way to clean up history, it preserves everything as is. If that's what you want, great, but as part of my git workflow I like to mess around and then go back and clean up and organize my commits before pushing them.
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "social component" is a big problem in actual FOSS.
People forget what FOSS is, and you get a world of unclear expectations. FOSS is code + a copyright license. How the code is created is an entirely different matter, and where FOSS projects often fall short. As FOSS projects come Forgejo is well-organized around a community governance model.
Indeed, the fact that maintainers didn't have until only recently the control for disabling Pull Requests tab in a GitHub repo, is what drove a lot of issues in FOSS collaboration over the past decade.
FOSS and open source licenses never ever granted entitlement for contributors to have their proposals reviewed/merged by maintainers. Neither it ever offered entitlement for users to ask for free support.
FOSS is about giving people access to source code so they can do with it whatever they want, and maintainers/authors should have always had the ability to "publish and forget" the source code, without having to deal with those "entitlements".
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#137What if you don't want to self host? Who offers low feature git hosting for a small price? Something like the old $7 account before github was bought by MS? All I want is hosting and a read only web interface, plus access control in case I have collaborators. All the offerings are enterprise priced because they offer "minutes of CI", "AI assistants" and other icing on the cake.
I think Gitlab is probably the best option, or gitea. Personally I'm not a fan of Codeberg - I think their licensing is a mess.
Which licensing?
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#138I have also moved my git repositories to a self-hosted NUC. I have not yet bothered with a HTTP frontend to share it with the world, mostly because I don't want to provide AI scrapers with content and don't want to put the work in to block them. It's a shame that all these companies that benefited from open source have poisoned the industry like this
[deleted]
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this. Moving the git repo is easy, moving the whole project surface is the hard part. Issues, releases, CI, docs, security advisories, search and discoverability all tend to get coupled to GitHub over time. For open-source projects, I like the idea of self-hosted as the source of truth, but still keeping a read-only GitHub mirror so people can actually find it.
...Maybe that's the answer, we need a "hub" for the smaller missing things to start, you pop in your git repository when you join, and it can sit as a thin layer over your repo with issues, releases, etc... Sounds like a lot of work, but doing it piecemeal would do it. I think trying to re-host git itself might be more trouble than its worth. My kingdom for someone to build this so I don't have to use ADO boards anym…
Like some kind of UI over a database scraped by code which understands Github, Forgejo, Gitlab, sr.ht, etc?
One issue is that issues tend to be monotonically increasing numbers, and references to old issues vs. new issues get confusing over time.
Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t wait for federation in Forgejo. With that, there’s honestly no reason not to host your own forge.
The reason will be that not everyone wants to deal wit maintaining a self-hosted box.
my eyes have been glazing over it feels like our infra/devops dudes have proverbially given up and they're just looking to buy cloud services to do everything now. security guy looks like he wants to jump off a bridge and i keep trying to nudge them into waking up to not needing 99.9% uptime we'll settle with 95% uptime and no one needs to be on call, and you can go to sleep at night knowing all the code lives behind your damn fort knox firewall company intranet and 75 layers of authentication.
it's interesting because the more paid services these guys bring on board the more complex the security shit gets for them. the head of our IT is a fucking lunatic though and he is steering shit towards utter disaster, he's obsessed with being the guy who picks the next cloud service that "makes things so much better".
my small team is actually considering just getting some mac minis and making a cluster of servers. we decided we don't need infinite uptime for hosting m-f office tools and we can just ... not interface with our infra/devops guys who have lost their damn minds and say no to everything now. they're supposed to be the compute tower under the tragedy known as TBM and they haven't approved a single VM in like 2 years.