GitHub to Codeberg: my experience

(eldred.fr)

80 points | by todsacerdoti 6 hours ago

5 comments

  • Emen15 48 minutes ago
    What really stands out to me in this migration story isn't the technical side at all, but the reminder that "feature parity" isn't the real hurdle here. Codeberg is already good enough for most day to day workflows; what it doesn't have is the gravitational pull GitHub built through network effects, integrations, and plain old inertia.
  • michael_michael 1 hour ago
    Are there any alternatives to Github that offer similar bang for the buck? Particularly for very small teams or solo devs that need private repos? The author here specifically mentions Codeberg, which seems like it's just for FOSS projects.
    • cy6erlion 42 minutes ago
      If you want a decentralized approach, you can selfhost cgit (https://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/) and receive patches via email. People interested can subscribe via RSS. If you simply want a way to browse your code on a static website checkout stagit (https://codemadness.org/stagit.html) which is similar to cgit but very light weight (it simply generates HTML of your git repository).

      Edit: There is also Fossil (https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki) by the SQLite developers. It is an SCM that is not based on git.

    • NewJazz 1 hour ago
      You can self host the software underlying Codeberg, which is Forgejo. Then there is also GitLab which has a lot more features but is arguably more intensive to maintain. And then there is the long tail, such as the projects Forgejo was forged from (Gitea and Gogs) and various other FOSS forges e.g. Phorge which was forked from the now discontinued Phabricator.
    • bloppe 47 minutes ago
      If you want bang for your buck, and you use free GitHub Actions, then no.
    • ackyshake 52 minutes ago
      I like sourcehut. It's the only forge out there that isn't set out to copy the Github UI like everyone else. And its UI itself feels instantaneous, as if it was running locally.
      • ISSOtm 14 minutes ago
        I also like it, particularly for its outstanding CI, but I don't like the patch/email-centric approach. (Gave it a try, didn't have a good time.)
    • ISSOtm 19 minutes ago
      Note that private repos are supported on Codeberg. (I would link to one of mine, but you'd just see a 404 :P)
    • docsaintly 1 hour ago
      GitLab. There's also the option of self hosting it on a cheap server if you don't like cloud services.
    • femiagbabiaka 58 minutes ago
      There's nothing about Codeberg that's FOSS only afaict.
      • MYEUHD 57 minutes ago
        Codeberg requires that the repos you host are FOSS
        • femiagbabiaka 43 minutes ago
          • bradly 12 minutes ago
            From the current Terms of Service:

              Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution.
            
              They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
            
            So the ToS says only private repos that support FLOSS, but then backdoors into "small & personal stuff" which is pretty loose and up to Codeberg's discretion so probably not the best place for your private side project repos.
    • wyldfire 49 minutes ago
      Sourcehut [1] is another interesting one.

      [1] https://sourcehut.org/alpha-details/

  • darkamaul 1 hour ago
    I've noticed that several projects on the front page today (and over the past few days) are migrating away from GitHub.

    Is there any recent event or broader trend that explains this shift?

    • quamserena 1 hour ago
      Zig’s announcement[0] might provide some insight

      [0] https://ziglang.org/news/migrating-from-github-to-codeberg/

    • NewJazz 1 hour ago
      Ongoing availability issues, Microsoft's shoehorning of AI, GitHub's focus on migrating to Azure infrastructure rather than adding features and fixing shortcomings. If I had to guess.
      • ainiriand 56 minutes ago
        ... Training their own models out of your code...
        • bloppe 49 minutes ago
          If you're publishing your code anywhere, it's getting trained on. MS does not restrict themselves to only training on GH-hosted code.
          • ISSOtm 13 minutes ago
            The point still stands for private repos, and also not making the job easy for them.
          • throwaway290 5 minutes ago
            > If you're publishing your code anywhere, it's getting trained on

            citation needed. first they need to know my code exists... spend time and traffic crawling it because it's sure as hell not going to be hosted on azure... probably get detected and banned.

  • BrenBarn 44 minutes ago
    More and more people seem to be migrating away from Github. Now if only there were some Mercurial solutions among the alternatives. . .
  • IshKebab 1 hour ago
    Does Codeberg provide free CI runners? I'd estimate Microsoft spends over $100m/year on free Github CI. Likely their biggest cost. It doesn't seem like a reasonable thing Codeberg to fund for free.
    • jsheard 53 minutes ago
      They do, but their capacity is limited so you have to ask them for access and make a reasonable case.

      https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/

      • ISSOtm 20 minutes ago
        Actually, that's only for the Woodpecker instance. Forgejo Actions can be used without asking for permission, and three tiers of (Linux-only, adm64-only) free runners are provided.
    • duttish 56 minutes ago
      For me this is the GitHub moat.
      • NewJazz 55 minutes ago
        It isn't really a moat so much as a loss leader. Travis CI was free back in the day IIRC.
        • bloppe 45 minutes ago
          Well if/when GH eliminates the free tier, I'll probably churn. I agree that's the main thing keeping me there.