Hacker News Reader

Comment by nannal | Hacker News Reader

Isn't that how git is designed to be?

Git, yes. Github, no. Github has many Github-only features such as "continuous integration". Those need to become portable, so you can run your builds on AWS or Hurricane Electric as desired.

It's become dangerous for open source to rely on anyone who can cut off your air supply. Look at the current flap over Red Hat.

Good thing that Gitea has/is worked/working on a compatible Ci/CD pipeline.

Not sure if it’s 100% compatible yet, but that’s their goal.

GitLab has many of Github's features including CI, no? https://tomasvotruba.com/blog/how-can-we-use-github-actions-.... Furthermore, GitLab can be self-hosted and the CI can be configured to use your own VMs.

My team does CI in gitlab, and many big organizations use self-hosted instances GitLab like KDE and GNOME.

We do the same with Gitlab -- self-hosted, using their gitlabrunner as the CI agent. It's great!

I haven't personally done it much, but it seems like moving CI should be relatively straightforward as long as your pipelines are mostly just npm/make/cargo/bash/etc scripts. If all of your actual logic is in your build system, the bit of yaml that defines the infrastructure on a particular CI platform shouldn't be very complicated to move.

"Run this script in this container and cache these outputs."

Projects on Github are more than git. Commits can move, but issues, pull requests, role mappings, wikis, and Actions, are all potentially impossible/difficult to migrate elsewhere.

I agree in general, but the wiki specifically is just another git repository that you can clone.

e.g. for a repo at mholm/myrepo

  git clone https://github.com/mholm/myrepo.wiki

Reply on news.ycombinator.com