I find it strange the websites some of these HN articles are hosted on... going through the effort to write a post before getting a domain outside of .vercel.app is interesting.
It’s a slop article based on a tweet.
You already have a Git server
21–30 of 34 posts
Re: You already have a Git server
#22You can also have an upstream git repo on a local filesystem and add that as a remote. But when most people talk about a git server that includes collaboration and giving people SSH access just so that they can read from your repo is not reasonable.
Why isn't it reasonable? Ssh works fine for the big repo providers.
Are you just saying that managing account access at the personal machine level is a lot of work?
Re: You already have a Git server
#23This is indeed a Git server. It is not a Git Forge though. Pull Requests, Issues, CI/CD, access management, etc. are about as important as a putting my code somewhere.
Re: You already have a Git server
#24This is an AI generated article
Re: You already have a Git server
#25You can also have an upstream git repo on a local filesystem and add that as a remote. But when most people talk about a git server that includes collaboration and giving people SSH access just so that they can read from your repo is not reasonable.
Nobody seems to have really embraced the truly distributed model of git, where you can expose a local repository via read-only HTTP, and collaborate by pulling from each others' repositories. No pushes. This would be unwieldy in a corporate environment and for those who don't really grok git, but for a small cadre of experienced developers, this may be a workable model.
Radicle doesn’t get enough credit. They’ve created a really excellent take on modern distributed git.
Re: You already have a Git server
#26This is indeed a Git server. It is not a Git Forge though. Pull Requests, Issues, CI/CD, access management, etc. are about as important as a putting my code somewhere.
For access management (sharing the Git-over-ssh hosting for a centralized repo), gitolite adds the little layer.
Re: You already have a Git server
#27Can you rewrite this by hand, please? I was so confused what this article was supposed to tell me. > No YAML file with 47 indents. What is this referencing? what yaml file? The front-end also screams AI generated
Check the home page - it mentions 47 tabs. Tabs is obviously in a similar semantic space to indents, so the number 47 carried over. Or maybe this AI slopmachine just likes the number 47.
Re: You already have a Git server
#28This seemed familiar? The first few lines/commands are a straight copy and paste of a post that reached front page 8 months back: https://maurycyz.com/misc/easy_git/ (HN post [here](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45710721)). The rest is just AI rewording. Even the quips about wiring this up to the blog's site generator are stolen. Even the _date format_ (which is different from the rest of the sites blogs) is stolen.
However, this does not look affiliated at all with the real author's blog. Exploring this vercel site, looks like they rip dozens of creators blog posts day for SEO spam? And for what? Their homepage (and its non-functional demo) is just for a link preview feature? Something that many browsers already provide natively (and if not, you can just use the many existing browser extensions for this)?
Is this a giant spyware/malware promotion? I'm very confused.
OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=sheelagay) seems to be affiliated with the page and seems to be only posting this for the last few months; their first post is promoting/showcasing the "product".
Re: You already have a Git server
#29> That is it. No Docker. No CI pipeline. No serverless function. No YAML file with 47 indents. Just SSH and git — two tools you already have. Sigh.
That is it. No patience. No care. No attention to detail. No scratchpad with multiple edits. Just Claude and a prompt — the only two things you can tolerate.
Re: You already have a Git server
#30> git config receive.denyCurrentBranch updateInstead
I didn't know that was possible to allow pushing the checked out branch - but for completeness, the alternative would be to make a bare repo where simply no branch is checked out.