9 ms·

https://codeberg.org https://codeberg.org uses the https://gitea.io https://gitea.io software for its free remote Git repository service. If you're uncomfortabl

https://codeberg.org https://codeberg.org uses the https://gitea.io https://gitea.io software for its free remote Git repository service. If you're uncomfortable with non-free software, open-core, commercial underpinnings and/or corporate ownership of Github and Gitlab, hosting your repos on Codeberg — or starting your own Gitea site — are very viable alternatives. (Edited for typos)

richardwhiuk 7y ago
It's difficult to see how gitea is anything other than a copyright infringement of GitHub. Compare: - https://codeberg.org/n0mad/vulkan-tests https://codeberg.org/n0mad/vulkan-tests - https://try.gitea.io/egrteg/LibreLingo https://try.gitea.io/egrteg/LibreLingo - https://github.com/kantord/LibreLingo https://github.com/kantord/LibreLingo
- hundchenkatze 7y ago
  What are they infringing on? Site layout? There are tons of Github alternatives that all follow similar layout and styles. Gitlab, Gogs, Bitbucket...
  - apocalyptic0n3 7y ago
    Gitlab was basically a pixel-for-pixel clone in the beginning before they started differentiating themselves on features and then developed their own UI. Made it super easy to onboard new employees 5+ years ago, honestly.
- tmalsburg2 7y ago
  Please do yourself a favor and google "copyright".
  - richardwhiuk 7y ago
    Look and feel is definitely copyrighted.
dgreensp 7y ago
Thanks, this was very helpful! I was scanning the prose on the Codeberg website looking to see if Codeberg itself was open source, but all it said was that it was "free" and "non-profit." Now I see that Gitea is the software (basically a clone of GitHub that is visually almost div-for-div, released with an MIT license, that you can host yourself), and Codeberg is central hosting (a "hub") running Gitea, operated as a non-profit.
- 411111111111111 7y ago
  Gitea is a fork of gogs. Gogs is still in development as well. If people are interested, definitely check that out as well.
  - jchook 7y ago
    If you don’t need issue tracking then also check out cgit. Gitea is very slow (eg 4s GET requests) for large codebases. cgit is like lightning.
ncmncm 7y ago
I had developed the impression that gitea kept all the project metadata -- bug tracking, PRs, etc -- in the same repository with the project code. Was this impression correct? Looking at the "Comparison" page does not suggest anything, one way or the other. To me that would be the most important differentiator. Do any of the others do it?
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  Wait, is that something you would want? I would find it pretty awful if my git history for my code had all the other things like issues and PR metadata in it. Could potentially see it being useful if it were stored in an "auxiliary" repo that I could pull separately.
  - rkeene2 7y ago
    Fossil keeps them in the same repo but as a separate kind of object.
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    The big advantage would be that all that metadata would also be decentralised, i.e. I'd have a backup of all that on my own PC, and I could push it to a different host to automatically transfer everything, whereas e.g. GitLab has had to write custom import scripts for GitHub metadata, and you just have to hope that everything maps cleanly if you use it.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Of course I want it. History is history. Furthermore, why should PRs, bug reports, and build artifacts not be able to refer directly to source objects and revisions, and vice versa? A simple way to represent it might be as an ASCII dump of one or more databases representing it all, so you could roll back to any day's state; or as an update-log transcript, so you could roll back to the state after any given transaction. Both amount to successive diffs, so are reasonably compact.
    - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

richardwhiuk 7y ago

It's difficult to see how gitea is anything other than a copyright infringement of GitHub. Compare: - https://codeberg.org/n0mad/vulkan-tests https://codeberg.org/n0mad/vulkan-tests - https://try.gitea.io/egrteg/LibreLingo https://try.gitea.io/egrteg/LibreLingo - https://github.com/kantord/LibreLingo https://github.com/kantord/LibreLingo

hundchenkatze 7y ago
What are they infringing on? Site layout? There are tons of Github alternatives that all follow similar layout and styles. Gitlab, Gogs, Bitbucket...
- apocalyptic0n3 7y ago
  Gitlab was basically a pixel-for-pixel clone in the beginning before they started differentiating themselves on features and then developed their own UI. Made it super easy to onboard new employees 5+ years ago, honestly.
tmalsburg2 7y ago
Please do yourself a favor and google "copyright".
- richardwhiuk 7y ago
  Look and feel is definitely copyrighted.

dgreensp 7y ago

Thanks, this was very helpful! I was scanning the prose on the Codeberg website looking to see if Codeberg itself was open source, but all it said was that it was "free" and "non-profit." Now I see that Gitea is the software (basically a clone of GitHub that is visually almost div-for-div, released with an MIT license, that you can host yourself), and Codeberg is central hosting (a "hub") running Gitea, operated as a non-profit.

411111111111111 7y ago
Gitea is a fork of gogs. Gogs is still in development as well. If people are interested, definitely check that out as well.
- jchook 7y ago
  If you don’t need issue tracking then also check out cgit. Gitea is very slow (eg 4s GET requests) for large codebases. cgit is like lightning.

ncmncm 7y ago

I had developed the impression that gitea kept all the project metadata -- bug tracking, PRs, etc -- in the same repository with the project code. Was this impression correct? Looking at the "Comparison" page does not suggest anything, one way or the other. To me that would be the most important differentiator. Do any of the others do it?

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
Wait, is that something you would want? I would find it pretty awful if my git history for my code had all the other things like issues and PR metadata in it. Could potentially see it being useful if it were stored in an "auxiliary" repo that I could pull separately.
- rkeene2 7y ago
  Fossil keeps them in the same repo but as a separate kind of object.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  The big advantage would be that all that metadata would also be decentralised, i.e. I'd have a backup of all that on my own PC, and I could push it to a different host to automatically transfer everything, whereas e.g. GitLab has had to write custom import scripts for GitHub metadata, and you just have to hope that everything maps cleanly if you use it.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Of course I want it. History is history. Furthermore, why should PRs, bug reports, and build artifacts not be able to refer directly to source objects and revisions, and vice versa? A simple way to represent it might be as an ASCII dump of one or more databases representing it all, so you could roll back to any day's state; or as an update-log transcript, so you could roll back to the state after any given transaction. Both amount to successive diffs, so are reasonably compact.
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago