Live data from Hacker News

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

jorijn.com

261–270 of 380 posts

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#261

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…

github's draw is the community and exposure.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#262
post #260

I do not need a new shiny code hosting platform. I just need a better way for managing merge requests/pull requests. Stuff that does not suck, especially a better diff, like semantic diff that is more clever than before. I do not care if my formatter changed stuff from 6 to 4 spaces because an html element was dropped. I want to have a more sane workflow for splitting things. I want to scale up reviews… its still so…

Being a shiny new code hosting platform is not really the point of forgejo though, it's at best a nice side effect.

I suppose forgejo is meant to be a lightweight, low maintenance, feature-rich, self-hostable otherwise GitHub-like free software.

But I suppose you could open issues to propose your ideas.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#263
Github is more than a UI and remote storage, it's a community and discovery tool for open source repos.

Federating to self-hosted means you are depending on google for discovery, which will never rank.

If you need a backup remote, just backup to Google Drive / iCloud. Private team collab? run a server.

While I understand the frustration with github, the prescription to self host seems like cutting off your nose.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (...) I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are someh…

> This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are somehow outraged if people actually use said code? You're making things up: the outrage is not that people used it, it's that…

idk, all the code i've seen produced by an llm doesn't appear to be derived from anything. Also, the source code they were trained on does not exist in the model, it's impossible for the llm to return a code snippet from some other code base. The code snippet doesn't exist in the model in the first place. I guess another way to put it is show your code in the output of an llm that isn't being attributed correctly.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#265

I'm kind of baffled why everybody is suddenly hating on github? I use it just fine. I'm actually impressed how well codex is able to interact with it. I virtually do not need to fret about git commands or managing github to respond to issues anymore. I don't see an alternative and its a bit of a stretch to expect people to follow you unless you are famous or have that audience reach already which many of us do not.

Primarily anti AI. Also doesn't feel like my private repositories are both truly private, nor safe there anymore

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#266
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.

Open source is not necessarily about helping any programmer, for any endeavor. Actually, my code targets the end users, not fellow programmers.

I don't want my code to be used to build proprietary software. I want code built on top of mine to respect its users. I choose the AGPL for this reason.

I also don't mind the attribution.

The LLMs don't care about all that, and do that by hogging the resources, y creating a lot of waste and pollution and disrupting society for unclear benefits. No thanks.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are somehow outraged if people actually use said code? You're making things up: the outrage is not that people used it, it's that…

idk, all the code i've seen produced by an llm doesn't appear to be derived from anything. Also, the source code they were trained on does not exist in the model, it's impossible for the llm to return a code snippet from some other code base. The code snippet doesn't exist in the model in the first place. I guess another way to put it is show your code in the output of an llm that isn't being attributed correctly.

At least on GitHub there was a special flag to exclude code that matches publicly available source code. Thus the chance is higher than 0. Which matches my experience last year when multiple Copilot chats got redacted for that reason.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#268
post #226

I've also heard of Tangled [0] which is decentralized and built on the AT Protocol like Bluesky but also has some genuinely useful features that GitHub has been dragging its heels over in implementing, like PR stacking, such that entire companies have sprung up to add that feature in GitHub. Has anyone tried this? [0] https://tangled.org/

They just got a big VC funding. There is still no mention about the business model. I really wonder what it will be.

The same as it always is, rug pull the community at the first sign of hardship and fuck over any worker that stands in front of your potential monetary gains.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#269
post #14

I’ve moved to self hosted gitea a year ago running in my homelab and not publicly accessible. No https, registrations disabled and repos are not public. I’m thinking about making public instance and use it with https, but minimize the attack surface, any recommendations especially about gitea/forgejo?

When I adopted Foregjo I did so because I didn't like the sound of some political arguments across threads about some alleged security issues Foregjo raised with Gitea who allegedly ignored them. What keeps you using Gitea? I'm wondering if I should try it over Foregejo now.

I'm one of the project leads of Gitea (and am paid for some of my work on Gitea), and here are some more details around the specific incident you are talking about: We were alerted to an issue, and investigated provided a patch, and then waited until the end of the embargo to release the next version with the fix. It turns out they had sent a follow up after our response to them that, due to their usage of an email relay that gets blocked for spam often, went into the spam box for all of the maintainers on the security team (across multiple mail providers). We informed them of this and they still haven't corrected the record on their blog post. This is after previously giving us 10 and 2 day "embargoes" on "severe" issues and a multi-hundred line patch that rewrote core portions of the codebase and introduced issues in itself, we notified them of this and provided them with out patch. In our interactions with them we have also followed our documented approach, that we have followed with codeberg previously (that we were thanked and applauded), but they have changed their stance and claimed we are now acting improperly (and when we asked for how we could adjust our approach to something that works for their adjusted expectations we never received a response, even after receiving multiple emails from multiple non-company maintainers and even messages in multiple chatrooms).

Disclaimer: I was also previously an elected member of Codeberg's board (presidium), where before the company that was founded to support Gitea's community maintainers was created, I had asked for assistance with multiple matters to aid in project development and was denied.

Post reply on HN