5 ms·

It's been 9 months since I ditched Github. Currently I self-host Gitea [0], use its registry for Docker, NPM etc and act runners [1] for github actions alterna

It's been 9 months since I ditched Github. Currently I self-host Gitea [0], use its registry for Docker, NPM etc and act runners [1] for github actions alternative, everything secured under tailnet. I'm extremely satisfied with that setup. It is batteries included & fire and forget. Now I use Github only as backup by mirroring my self hosted repos. [0] https://gitea.com https://gitea.com [1] https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/act-runner https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/act-runner

onesandofgrain 2mo ago
You use github as a backup, why bother self-hosting then?
- n4r9 2mo ago
  [dead]
- close04 2mo ago
  The self hosting will still be there and working as expected no matter what GH does (fails... again, DMCAs the repo, bans the account, etc.). Self hosting isn't only about being the only one with the data, it's also for the independence aspect. GH as a backup doesn't hinder the independence. Network effects are strong and make a lot of developers still have a GH presence as a secondary platform. The evolution is when one can finally fully disconnect from GH, the main self hosted platform will continue to operate as if nothing happened. A migration can have a period of parallel running.
- hambos22 2mo ago
  Github is an extra layer of backup, among normal backups. [edit] Notable reasons: - Github runners went oftenly out of space & they were slow. With self hosted runners I don't have these issues anymore because I control the hardware. Previously I was paying Docker Build Cloud/Depot for performance + Github Pro for extra minutes. Now it's zero cost, superb performance and unlimited minutes. - I have a centralized registry with private packages and images. - It's secure, I don't worry if I accidentally make a repo public or leak secrets. I control the access to it in network level. - I own everything, in case something goes nuts (eg lose access to GH) I'm safe.
  - onesandofgrain 2mo ago
    If you're using github as a backup, then whatever you say you own, they also own. So I still don't understand why you are self-hosting and using github as an extra layer of backup. Seems philosophically inconsistent.
    - tancop 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - hambos22 2mo ago
      Nothing philosophical here. Whatever makes you productive. I own the git, the runners, the registry etc and just use GH for backup. GH cannot interrupt suddenly my business.
- stanac 2mo ago
  Not GP. Probably less dependencies on github, e.g. actions which sometimes don't work. This way github is a "dumb backup". I selfhost forgejo (gitea fork) on home sever (nuc), similar setup with tailscale. I was planning to setup git mirror on a remote VM for backup, but since I am the only one using it and have everything on dev laptop and remote backups of nuc server I didn't bother to do that (I know I still should).
  - wseqyrku 2mo ago
    > This way github is a "dumb backup" Eh? What GH department do you work in anyways? Training Data Sustainability?
    - stanac 2mo ago
      I don't understand your question. If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? edit: If you think I sound like an LLM, I guess that is what happens when most of your interactions in English language are with LLMs.
      - jjgreen 2mo ago
        Given the state of it, you might well ...
        stanac 2mo ago
        I missed the opportunity to add "you are absolutely right".
      - wseqyrku 2mo ago
        > If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? Why not. But you are saying github as a dumb backup makes sense when you do self-hosting. I don't think you really believe that.
        Brian_K_White 2mo ago
- walrus01 2mo ago
  Because the existence and continued normal operation of the primary is not dependent upon the capricious whims or instability of GitHub.
permalac 2mo ago
Similar with forgejo. I mirrored all gh then flipped the ones I was using the most. The biggest win was on running apple runners in my mac, so the free gh actions can do other stuff.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  Getting better, more reliable and faster CI was such an underappreciated gain (from me at least) when moving to a self-hosted git platform. What used to take ~40 minutes end-to-end (from pushing commit to having release binary ready for three platforms) now takes less than 10 minutes, and seemingly that whole slowdown was causing me more headache that I think I was willing to admit at the time.
BrandoElFollito 2mo ago
I self host gitea for my personal-personal projects, the ones nobody will ever see. For the personal-opensource ones, I am on Github because this is where everyone is when I want to share/collaborate etc
- rozularen 2mo ago
  actually good approach and the one that could make me switch to selfhosting
Jnr 2mo ago
I similarly have been using Gitea for some years. I use it as my main forge and mirror to Github for discoverability and community reports and contributions. For public projects I have workflows that can publish and push containers to both Gitea and Github.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

onesandofgrain 2mo ago

You use github as a backup, why bother self-hosting then?

n4r9 2mo ago
[dead]
close04 2mo ago
The self hosting will still be there and working as expected no matter what GH does (fails... again, DMCAs the repo, bans the account, etc.). Self hosting isn't only about being the only one with the data, it's also for the independence aspect. GH as a backup doesn't hinder the independence. Network effects are strong and make a lot of developers still have a GH presence as a secondary platform. The evolution is when one can finally fully disconnect from GH, the main self hosted platform will continue to operate as if nothing happened. A migration can have a period of parallel running.
hambos22 2mo ago
Github is an extra layer of backup, among normal backups. [edit] Notable reasons: - Github runners went oftenly out of space & they were slow. With self hosted runners I don't have these issues anymore because I control the hardware. Previously I was paying Docker Build Cloud/Depot for performance + Github Pro for extra minutes. Now it's zero cost, superb performance and unlimited minutes. - I have a centralized registry with private packages and images. - It's secure, I don't worry if I accidentally make a repo public or leak secrets. I control the access to it in network level. - I own everything, in case something goes nuts (eg lose access to GH) I'm safe.
- onesandofgrain 2mo ago
  If you're using github as a backup, then whatever you say you own, they also own. So I still don't understand why you are self-hosting and using github as an extra layer of backup. Seems philosophically inconsistent.
  - tancop 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - hambos22 2mo ago
    Nothing philosophical here. Whatever makes you productive. I own the git, the runners, the registry etc and just use GH for backup. GH cannot interrupt suddenly my business.
stanac 2mo ago
Not GP. Probably less dependencies on github, e.g. actions which sometimes don't work. This way github is a "dumb backup". I selfhost forgejo (gitea fork) on home sever (nuc), similar setup with tailscale. I was planning to setup git mirror on a remote VM for backup, but since I am the only one using it and have everything on dev laptop and remote backups of nuc server I didn't bother to do that (I know I still should).
- wseqyrku 2mo ago
  > This way github is a "dumb backup" Eh? What GH department do you work in anyways? Training Data Sustainability?
  - stanac 2mo ago
    I don't understand your question. If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? edit: If you think I sound like an LLM, I guess that is what happens when most of your interactions in English language are with LLMs.
    - jjgreen 2mo ago
      Given the state of it, you might well ...
      - stanac 2mo ago
        I missed the opportunity to add "you are absolutely right".
    - wseqyrku 2mo ago
      > If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? Why not. But you are saying github as a dumb backup makes sense when you do self-hosting. I don't think you really believe that.
      - Brian_K_White 2mo ago
walrus01 2mo ago
Because the existence and continued normal operation of the primary is not dependent upon the capricious whims or instability of GitHub.

permalac 2mo ago

Similar with forgejo. I mirrored all gh then flipped the ones I was using the most. The biggest win was on running apple runners in my mac, so the free gh actions can do other stuff.

embedding-shape 2mo ago
Getting better, more reliable and faster CI was such an underappreciated gain (from me at least) when moving to a self-hosted git platform. What used to take ~40 minutes end-to-end (from pushing commit to having release binary ready for three platforms) now takes less than 10 minutes, and seemingly that whole slowdown was causing me more headache that I think I was willing to admit at the time.

BrandoElFollito 2mo ago

I self host gitea for my personal-personal projects, the ones nobody will ever see. For the personal-opensource ones, I am on Github because this is where everyone is when I want to share/collaborate etc

rozularen 2mo ago
actually good approach and the one that could make me switch to selfhosting

Jnr 2mo ago

I similarly have been using Gitea for some years. I use it as my main forge and mirror to Github for discoverability and community reports and contributions. For public projects I have workflows that can publish and push containers to both Gitea and Github.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]