4 ms·

Why do this when http://bitbucket.com http://bitbucket.com will host private git repos for free? They also have have Large File Storage implemented as well. I

Why do this when http://bitbucket.com http://bitbucket.com will host private git repos for free? They also have have Large File Storage implemented as well. I use GitHib client using BitBucket for repo hosting with LFS and it works great, no need to host anything.

2bluesc 10y ago
Or gitlab.com which offers private repos and also allows you to self host your own gitlab instance if you need to.
newsat13 10y ago
Many people (including me) like the idea of self-hosting because we feel more in control.
RandomOpinion 10y ago
> Why do this when http://bitbucket.com http://bitbucket.com will host private git repos for free? Because you never know when one of these online services will suffer an outage, suffer a security breach that leasks your private repos or email & credentials, or even lose your data entirely. The fact that the service is free doesn't mean that it doesn't come without potential issues.
- dbg31415 10y ago
  But... you are using another online service to host the service yourself, no? And presumably they are also throwing in backups and redundancy of some sort... certainly it would take you a minute to set those things up, test them, monitor they are working... And isn't GitHub basically like everyone's resume these days? I don't know... at some point you sort of just have to trust someone... be it the hosting provider, or the service provider. And I'm old... but I've had to untangle issues with CVS / VSS / SVN / etc... over the years I don't want anything to do with that crap -- if I can punt it to someone else to manage I'm OK paying some tiny subscription fee. I think there's been one day in the last ~10 years when I couldn't use GitHub. To me that seems worth the $20 a month, or whatever they charge now.
  - Jach 10y ago
    It's especially sad because git is distributed and every time there's a GitHub outage I hear online some teams are blocked for the day. But everyone has the whole repo. You're not screwed like if your SVN or Perforce server goes down. Anyone could become the new "remote to push to / pull from" until the outage is resolved, or you could set up one of these bare repos somewhere pretty quick. When the outage is resolved someone just pushes to the original and you're all fine.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      IME, the popular-remote-service-is-down panics mostly seem to apply in web development world, where apparently any cool project must have an insane number of dependencies, no local failover or caching, and production build/test/deployment processes that are intimately connected to those dependencies that have no local equivalents. GitHub goes down, their entire CI and deployment system falls apart, and no-one has any idea what any of their fancy cloud-hosted doodads was actually doing at the underlying level of the Git repos or which files need to go where on the servers, so they don't know where to start with recovery...
    - taneq 10y ago
      This is what happens when people cargo-cult git because it's what the cool kids are doing, instead of actually making an informed choice.
      - stephenr 10y ago
        S/git/GitHub/ Fixed that for you.
        taneq 9y ago
        Well, that too, but the issue here (thinking that a central repo being offline means you can't use your decentralized version control system) shows that they don't understand git in any form.
rocky1138 10y ago
Hosting it yourself means that you don't have to muck with LFS. Want to check in a 7GB file? Go right ahead.
- midnitewarrior 10y ago
  LFS is a tool to use to avoid checking in 7 gb files. If you want to weigh down your repo with binary bloat, don't configure your repo to use LFS.
  - kskskuejej2 10y ago
    Have you tried setting up LFS on your self-hosted ssh git repo? Turns out LFS is designed to authenticate over https and doesn't work at all with ssh credentials out of the box because f* you. I'm still hoping for a native git feature for large files, so the git-lfs crap can die in a fire.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      LFS was developed by GitHub, a company that depends on people thinking it's "too hard" to run their own DVCS repo hosting. Compare this with the Mercurial LargeFiles extension, which needs nothing more than a line in the .hgrc on each end (client/server) to enable it.
seangrogg 10y ago
Why have pictures stored anywhere else when https://facebook.com https://facebook.com will host private pictures for free?
Silhouette 10y ago
Why do this when http://bitbucket.com http://bitbucket.com will host private git repos for free? Not everything needs to be in the cloud, and using any online service run by someone else brings some degree of reliability, security, privacy and longevity risk. Some of us just prefer to avoid those risks, and usually will unless there's some compelling benefit that outweighs them.
peterkelly 10y ago
Because maybe for security reasons you want to host it on a server internal to your organization's network.

2bluesc 10y ago

Or gitlab.com which offers private repos and also allows you to self host your own gitlab instance if you need to.

newsat13 10y ago

Many people (including me) like the idea of self-hosting because we feel more in control.

RandomOpinion 10y ago

> Why do this when http://bitbucket.com http://bitbucket.com will host private git repos for free? Because you never know when one of these online services will suffer an outage, suffer a security breach that leasks your private repos or email & credentials, or even lose your data entirely. The fact that the service is free doesn't mean that it doesn't come without potential issues.

dbg31415 10y ago
But... you are using another online service to host the service yourself, no? And presumably they are also throwing in backups and redundancy of some sort... certainly it would take you a minute to set those things up, test them, monitor they are working... And isn't GitHub basically like everyone's resume these days? I don't know... at some point you sort of just have to trust someone... be it the hosting provider, or the service provider. And I'm old... but I've had to untangle issues with CVS / VSS / SVN / etc... over the years I don't want anything to do with that crap -- if I can punt it to someone else to manage I'm OK paying some tiny subscription fee. I think there's been one day in the last ~10 years when I couldn't use GitHub. To me that seems worth the $20 a month, or whatever they charge now.
- Jach 10y ago
  It's especially sad because git is distributed and every time there's a GitHub outage I hear online some teams are blocked for the day. But everyone has the whole repo. You're not screwed like if your SVN or Perforce server goes down. Anyone could become the new "remote to push to / pull from" until the outage is resolved, or you could set up one of these bare repos somewhere pretty quick. When the outage is resolved someone just pushes to the original and you're all fine.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    IME, the popular-remote-service-is-down panics mostly seem to apply in web development world, where apparently any cool project must have an insane number of dependencies, no local failover or caching, and production build/test/deployment processes that are intimately connected to those dependencies that have no local equivalents. GitHub goes down, their entire CI and deployment system falls apart, and no-one has any idea what any of their fancy cloud-hosted doodads was actually doing at the underlying level of the Git repos or which files need to go where on the servers, so they don't know where to start with recovery...
  - taneq 10y ago
    This is what happens when people cargo-cult git because it's what the cool kids are doing, instead of actually making an informed choice.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      S/git/GitHub/ Fixed that for you.
      - taneq 9y ago
        Well, that too, but the issue here (thinking that a central repo being offline means you can't use your decentralized version control system) shows that they don't understand git in any form.

rocky1138 10y ago

Hosting it yourself means that you don't have to muck with LFS. Want to check in a 7GB file? Go right ahead.

midnitewarrior 10y ago
LFS is a tool to use to avoid checking in 7 gb files. If you want to weigh down your repo with binary bloat, don't configure your repo to use LFS.
- kskskuejej2 10y ago
  Have you tried setting up LFS on your self-hosted ssh git repo? Turns out LFS is designed to authenticate over https and doesn't work at all with ssh credentials out of the box because f* you. I'm still hoping for a native git feature for large files, so the git-lfs crap can die in a fire.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    LFS was developed by GitHub, a company that depends on people thinking it's "too hard" to run their own DVCS repo hosting. Compare this with the Mercurial LargeFiles extension, which needs nothing more than a line in the .hgrc on each end (client/server) to enable it.

seangrogg 10y ago

Why have pictures stored anywhere else when https://facebook.com https://facebook.com will host private pictures for free?

Silhouette 10y ago

Why do this when http://bitbucket.com http://bitbucket.com will host private git repos for free? Not everything needs to be in the cloud, and using any online service run by someone else brings some degree of reliability, security, privacy and longevity risk. Some of us just prefer to avoid those risks, and usually will unless there's some compelling benefit that outweighs them.

peterkelly 10y ago

Because maybe for security reasons you want to host it on a server internal to your organization's network.