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

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

jorijn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 380 posts

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#231

Post by bayindirh »

ramblurr wrote: post #219
chris_money202 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah have to agree here, Github Copilot itself doesn't have any first party models they use the frontiers. So, they didn't "train" using public repos but they probably allowed (or didn't prevent) the frontiers from pulling the repos along with the rest of the internet when creating their models.

Is y'alls collective memory so short? Copilot just a few years ago was auto complete on steroids that was entirely first party and trained by GH on users' code.

It was even returning some code verbatim with the correct prompts.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#232

Post by Rapzid »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #4

“It’s not because of outages” - goes on to complain about outages. The outages might be due to AI load, but that’s to relevant because your leaving isn’t due to outages. Even though the article is primarily about outages. If you have a problem with your code being scanned for AI training, then write that article. But this article is about outages.

Of course not. It's trendy and a great way to virtue signal right now. GitHub is the target of the latest "go woke, go broke" "decentralization!" cycle. Their recent issues dealing with 30x load just made them a highly visible target.

Just skimming the comments on the internet and you see the same flavor of dumb, false narratives like "everyone is leaving GitHub" "too bad GitHub is in decline".

Meanwhile the vast, vast majority of people using GitHub for "getting shit done", while maybe impacted and unhappy with the outages, are not clamoring to move to Web3.0 forge-bro tech.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#233

Post by f33d5173 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

Everyone 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…

Not everybody uses git because they're infatuated with "the spirit of git". Only a tiny minority have ever even used it with the patches-by-email model it's intended for, and I would guess the vast majority of the rest have no interest in learning. People use git basically because it's what github uses, or slightly more generously because it works well when paired with a centralized host like github. The model of developing code locally and dicussion issues and patches via a web portal is the model people are taken with. Only a small portion of that is provided by git proper.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#235

Post by kstrauser »

onesandofgrain wrote: post #164
kstrauser wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I looked, Forgejo had more activity and more contributors than Gitea. Also, Forgejo eats its own dogfood: Codeberg runs on it, and hosts it, while Gitea runs on GitHub. It’s easy to make the case that Forgejo is good enough for public hosting. Gitea probably is, too, but there’s less direct evidence.

gitea runs on github u mean the source or the hosting?

Gitea uses GitHub to host the Gitea source code.

In contrast, Forgejo hosts its code on Codeberg, and Codeberg is running the Forgejo software.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#236

Post by jviotti »

8organicbits wrote: post #157
jviotti wrote: post #85

GitHub Actions is indeed the hard one to replace. I need Windows, Linux, Linux-ARM, macOS ARM, and macOS Intel runners. How do you guys using Forgejo and/or Codeberg do to get a similar matrix, hopefully at a low cost?

How much utilization do you have? For low scale, it's hard to beat GitHub Actions as they offer free runners for public repos and include a bunch of free hours for private repos. Once you start paying for it, GitHub Actions runners are very expensive. I've used both Jenkins and GitLab before to self-host CI/CD, and you save so much using on-demand (or at higher scale, reserved) cloud instances. I do freelance DevOps…

I use it pretty heavily on C++ stuff at GitHub.com/sourcemeta. i.e. take https://github.com/sourcemeta/blaze and this example recent run: https://github.com/sourcemeta/blaze/actions/runs/25751796502.

12 jobs per PR for up to 30 minutes running Linux, macOS, and Windows jobs on LLVM, GCC, and MSVC in static and shared builds with also some sanitiser configurations.

And consider across projects we might send dozens of PRs per week.

Right now it's somehow all fully free on GitHub Actions. I wonder what the same would cost on i.e. CircleCI

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#237

Post by nottorp »

mghackerlady wrote: post #106
nottorp wrote: post #62

What 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.

SourceHut is good, and despite you not wanting to self host, self hosting a git repo is one of the easiest things to self host

Oh if you don't do the web interface thing you can just git init and set up a few ssh keys or fcgiwrap.

I'd pay a bit so I don't have to back it up. But not 20 per friend who might make a commit next year.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#238

Post by w10-1 »

jimmaswell wrote: post #104
sc68cal wrote: post #34

I 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

Why would someone gladly provide their work as open source but draw the line at AI reading it and using that knowledge to help more programmers later? It makes no sense to me. I actively want all of my code to be read by AI.

Consider a couple similar situations:

1. Many teachers don't publish, and those that do publish often still reserve their best for their students.

2. OS development sometimes operates like esoteric societies: you publish enough that people with the desire and insight become interested and engaged - both a filter and an invitation. So you can tailor the community you like.

Both depend on people really valuing these mutually-constitutive relationships.

My observation is that the generations raised on social media and gaming are happy enough with those substitutes, and view publishing their best work as a kind of self-promotion and participation in a larger, diffuse community (without a real role in governance). And they're right: expecting more personal communities now is a severely limiting factor, and AI removes most of the incentives to participate in someone else's project.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#239

Post by nozzlegear »

MrFurious wrote: post #13
gchamonlive wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but GitHub is more than just git. The most important aspect of the platform that everybody seems to forget is the social component and how easy it made to create a persistent, off-site repository and collaborate across repos.

The "social component" is a big problem in actual FOSS.

What do you mean? Why is the social component a problem in FOSS?

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#240

Post by midtake »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

Everyone 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…

Everyone knows git is decentralized. What people are searching for is a space for the social component of development such as issue tracking. Being able to reference lines of codes in issues is a killer feature of github. Gitea and gitlab do it too but not as well.

Also "just use multiple remotes" doesn't solve the problem. If you don't trust GitHub you shouldn't be pushing code there to begin with. So the ideal platform for hosting an equivalent platform as Github needs to be a trusted one as well.

Post reply on HN