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

261–270 of 385 posts

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#261

Post by erdaniels »

literallyroy wrote: post #205
erdaniels wrote: post #130

I just migrated our entire company off of github to gitlab self-hosted. So far so good. It's entirely behind tailscale so we don't have any SSO tax from gitlab and all of our CI runners are on EKS + an on-prem cluster with GPUs. If anyone needs help or motivation accomplishing the same, just reach out!

Does self-hosted support SCIM or something else easy to connect for automatic user provisioning? Or do yal do account creations manually?

it does support it (https://docs.gitlab.com/administration/settings/scim_setup/) but we're not using it. We just do manual invites for now at our size. As far as kicking users out goes, if they're kicked out of gsuite, they're kicked out of tailscale, and they lose their gitlab access.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#262

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#263

Post by ragall »

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.

The original intent of the authors is by now irrelevant. The current "point" of git is that it's the most used version control solution, with good tooling support from third parties. Nothing more. And most people prefer to use it in a centralised fashion.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#264

Post by bsder »

Rapzid wrote: post #260
noirscape wrote: post #14

I don't dislike Codeberg inherently, but it's not a "true" GitHub replacement. It can handle a good chunk of GitHub repositories (namely those for well established FOSS projects looking to have everything a proper capital P project has), but if you're just looking for a generic place to put your code projects that aren't necessarily intended for public release and support (ie. random automation scripts, scraps of con…

> Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people Step 1.) Stay on GitHub I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. The current trend reminds me a lot of the couple years we had where Game Developers were that outlet. They needed to "Wake up" and not "Go woke, go broke". An incredible amount of online discourse around gaming was hijacked by toxic negati…

> I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration.

I would argue that the open source people aren't the only ones paying attention right now.

If you are hosting proprietary code on Github, it has become clear that Microsoft is going to feed that into their AI training set. If you don't want that, you don't have a choice but to leave Github.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#265

Post by KomoD »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #218
tbayramov wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Shameless plug) Hey, I’m building Monohub - as a GitHub alternative, and having private repositories is perhaps a key feature - it started as a place for me to host my own random stuff. Monohub [dot] dev is the URL. It’s quite early in development, so it’s quite rough around the edges. It has PR support though. Hosted in EU, incorporated in EU. Would be happy if you tried it out — maybe it’s something for you. Edit:…

Doesn’t .dev belong to Google? An old choice or provider for a EU-focused hosting.

And the site also uses Cloudflare (for domain registrar, DNS and CDN):

   ipinfo monohub.dev
  Core
  - IP           188.114.96.1
  - Anycast      true
  - Hostname     
  - City         San Francisco
  - Region       California
  - Country      United States (US)
  - Currency     USD ($)
  - Location     37.7621,-122.3971
  - Organization AS13335 Cloudflare, Inc.
  - Postal       94107
  - Timezone     America/Los_Angeles
Auth is hosted by Kinde (an Australian company, uses AWS)

Domain whois: https://monohub.dev.whoswho

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#266

Post by woodruffw »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #220
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 or accept one that can't natively build for a common set of end-user architectures. GitHub’s hosted runners support a grant total of two architectures. The only forges which I’ve seen with more variety are distributios’ forges usually hosting their own runners.

I probably should have said platform tuples, I guess. I'm not aware of a free alternative to GitHub that gives me (AMD64, ARM64) x (macOS, Windows, Linux).

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#267

Post by beanjuiceII »

bsder wrote: post #264
Rapzid wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people Step 1.) Stay on GitHub I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. The current trend reminds me a lot of the couple years we had where Game Developers were that outlet. They needed to "Wake up" and not "Go woke, go broke". An incredible amount of online discourse around gaming was hijacked by toxic negati…

> I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. I would argue that the open source people aren't the only ones paying attention right now. If you are hosting proprietary code on Github, it has become clear that Microsoft is going to feed that into their AI training set. If you don't want that, you don't have a choice but to leave Github.

you just disable the setting

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#268

Post by schubidubiduba »

beanjuiceII wrote: post #267
bsder wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. I would argue that the open source people aren't the only ones paying attention right now. If you are hosting proprietary code on Github, it has become clear that Microsoft is going to feed that into their AI training set. If you don't want that, you don't have a choice but to leave Github.

you just disable the setting

...and trust naively that that does anything

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#269

Post by prmoustache »

ragall wrote: post #263
prmoustache wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The original intent of the authors is by now irrelevant. The current "point" of git is that it's the most used version control solution, with good tooling support from third parties. Nothing more. And most people prefer to use it in a centralised fashion.

That doesn't remove the fact that when people are working on the code, their local copy doesn't disappear after they pushed their commits and a local copy is still available.

Only exception is when people are using the code editor embedded in the "forge" but this is usually an exceptional use rather than the norm.

Post reply on HN