9 ms·

Harness launches Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor

102 points by m-watson 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Gitness is built around Drone CI... Oh reading the comments, it's an extension of Drone. How compatible have Drone CI and it's open-source fork Woodpecker? I'm curious whether one might expect any kind of engine swap to work.
maxloh 3y ago
They should host a demo instance like Gitea does.
- sbandi 3y ago
  Thank you for the feedback! We are planning on working on it.
mdaniel 3y ago
please submit original sources <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37600545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37600545 (I would argue for this one, since it provides the most context) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601002
koito17 3y ago
How does this compare to e.g. Forgejo, Gitea, Gogs, self-hosted GitLab, or other alternatives? Forgejo in particular has self-hosted actions runners that can be registered offline, and the runners themselves can be given labels and execute most existing GitHub actions (in fact, the yaml format they use is intentionally meant to be compatible with GitHub actions). While the Pipelines UI looks nice, it hides all the very real details of deployment (and configuration) in a variety of environments. This is one thing Forgejo does well compared to e.g. Gitea for CI/CD, thanks to being very flexible in configuring runner secrets, registering runners, and so on. The runners themselves are also designed to run with rootless docker-in-docker. There is also the security aspect to consider. e.g. how does Pipelines prevent secrets from spilling in logs or people running bitcoin miners in CI? Does it offer a better level of security than Forgejo/Gitea here? The reason I am emphasizing CI/CD is because hosting code and a bug tracker is only one small aspect of GitHub IMO. The real big things are its popularity and GitHub Actions. It's not enough for many people (and businesses) to simply host code anymore. Many now expect commits pushed to certain branches to execute a variety of workflows -- from unit tests to full-on Kubernetes deployments.
- twunde 3y ago
  Harness actually came from the opposite direction where they started out with CD, bought a CI comment (drone.io if memory serves) and are now introducing git hosting. So it's likely CI/CD is better than the git hosting
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- TheBrokenRail 3y ago
  > Forgejo in particular has self-hosted actions runners that can be registered offline, and the runners themselves can be given labels and execute most existing GitHub actions (in fact, the yaml format they use is intentionally meant to be compatible with GitHub actions). This is also part of Gitea. Which makes since because Forgejo is a soft-fork of Gitea.
prepend 3y ago
> There hasn’t been a new Git repo launch in almost a decade,” Bansal told me. “Now you have GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket from Atlassian, but that’s really it Seems odd that he wouldn’t know about Sourcehut (2018) and Gitea (2016).
- lolinder 3y ago
  And Codeberg (2019), which was based on Gitea until they forked it into Forgejo (2022).
  - remram 3y ago
    Codeberg is a service not a separate software. Just like you wouldn't count salsa.debian.org or framagit.org as separate from GitLab, they are the same with maybe some local customization.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      At this point Codeberg is clearly distinct from Gitea and is more thoroughly open-source in its nature than anything Harness is going to bring out, but yes, you could combine it with Forgejo if that feels more fair.
      - remram 3y ago
        At this point Codeberg is running Forgejo not Gitea.
        lolinder 3y ago
        Yes, that's what I was saying.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Mind you I use (and thus pay for) Sourcehut: the vast majority of folks won't be cross shopping Sourcehut and GitHub. As it stands now the UX is (to put it charitably) bad. There's a lot to like, but overall Sourcehut is disjointed rather than cohesive. The workflow itself is also an acquired taste. With a bit of spit and polish Sourcehut could be quite nice to use, but it's not there yet. Hell, I bet Drew could pick up some of the UX folks that GitHub laid off. The others mentioned are more or less knockoffs of GitHub, because at one point GitHub was quite worth emulating.
v3ss0n 3y ago
looks more complicated than forgeo/gitea . gitea already servers all github needs for us
MassiveBonk51 3y ago
What's the differentiator for this? Tighter integration into their other offerings?
lazypenguin 3y ago
Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor which hosts their open-source code...on GitHub... with a prominent call to arms on their landing page to star their repository...on GitHub... If you don't even use your own product why should anyone else use it?
- booi 3y ago
  Perhaps it’s a mirror just to try to draw people in? If you wanted to start a new social network you would market the hell out of it on Facebook so
- Prickle 3y ago
  I assume that they used GitHub during the development of Gitness. It would be a bit risky to build your new git competitor inside itself, surely?
  - dcow 3y ago
    It's also kinda a hallmark of a mature computer anything to use itself in some way. You bootstrap your compiler using another until you can self compile. You write a build tool plugin which uses an older version of itself to enhance its own build. Intel probably uses intel chips to design future intel chips. It happens all the time and aesthetically computer nerds are drawn to this type of beauty.
    - askiiart 3y ago
      From elsewhere in the thread: > We have been using Gitness to develop Gitness for the last 6 months. We do mirror on GitHub as a backup. But we also want to meet the community where they exist today, which is GitHub.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rustd 3y ago
  We have been using Gitness to develop Gitness for the last 6 months. We do mirror on GitHub as a backup. But we also want to meet the community where they exist today, which is GitHub.
dispoacc9738 3y ago
[dead]
koolba 3y ago
> That’s changing today with the launch of the Gitness open-source Git repository and the Harness Code Repository, the hosted and managed version of Gitness. Wouldn’t this violate the git trademark policy? https://git-scm.com/about/trademark https://git-scm.com/about/trademark From that link: >> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service without Conservancy's written permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.
- troymc 3y ago
  You might be right, but there are already many products out there that have been violating that trademark policy for quite some time, e.g. GitLab, GitKraken, SmartGit, ... My guess is that Software Freedom Conservancy (a nonprofit) has more important things to do than go after those projects for trademark policy violations.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Some of those were specifically grandfathered in to the policy [0]: > Careful readers among you may now be wondering about GitHub, GitLab, Gitolite, etc. And now we get back to why it took over a year to get the trademark granted. > The USPTO initially rejected our application as confusingly similar to the existing trademark on GitHub, which was filed in 2008. While one might imagine where the "Git" in GitHub comes from, by the time we applied to the USPTO, both marks had been widely used in parallel for years. So we worked out an agreement with GitHub which basically says "we are mutually OK with the other trademark existing". > So GitHub is essentially outside the scope of the trademark policy, due to the history. We also decided to explicitly grandfather some major projects that were using similar portmanteaus, but which had generally been good citizens of the Git ecosystem (building on Git in a useful way, not breaking compatibility). Those include GitLab, JGit, libgit2, and some others. The reasoning was generally that it would be a big pain for those projects, which have established their own brands, to have to switch names. It's hard to hold them responsible for picking a name that violated a policy that didn't yet exist. [0] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@sigill.intra.peff.net/ https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...
nik736 3y ago
I can’t find any screenshots, am I missing something?
- rustd 3y ago
  Here’s a short overview video of the product. https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?si=MFP6bpMMUGMxUQCp https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?si=MFP6bpMMUGMxUQCp
  - mdaniel 3y ago
    that was helpful, thank you "upgrade to harness software delivery platform" <https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=96 https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=96> ... to do what? https://docs.gitness.com/ https://docs.gitness.com/ makes no such mention of upgrading or why anyone would want to and of course it's got all the AIz https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=118 https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=118 which I'd presume is this https://www.harness.io/products/aida https://www.harness.io/products/aida and yet https://www.harness.io/legal/aida-terms https://www.harness.io/legal/aida-terms says "AIDA may utilize multiple generative AI systems, including those from third parties, to generate Output. These systems may include various models, algorithms, and datasets. As a result, the Output generated by AIDA may incorporate contributions from different sources. Harness is not responsible for such third parties’ acts or omissions in relation to the processing of Submissions, or generation of Output." which feels kind of like a cop-out in a document entitled "AIDA Terms"
eka1 3y ago
So here's the GitHub project: https://github.com/harness/gitness https://github.com/harness/gitness How does the project already have 27k stars? Surely this was not public before? Or do you think drone always had this product?
- lolinder 3y ago
  Looking at the forks list, it looks like they converted their old "drone" repo into the "gitness" repo: https://github.com/harness/gitness/forks https://github.com/harness/gitness/forks So the stars all carried over. The old drone link now redirects to gitness: https://github.com/harness/drone https://github.com/harness/drone
  - eka1 3y ago
    You are right, this PR is where they introduced git to drone: https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/ https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/ Would have been awesome to see this as a separate project, but I guess they would like to ride the drone CI wave. I like drone, unsure about including git in there
    - bradrydzewski 3y ago
      I see Gitness as the evolution of Drone. We are using the Drone pipeline engine and a ton of Drone code under the hood, but we are also adding Code hosting capabilities. And at some point, when you upgrade to the next major version of Drone, you will actually be upgrading to Gitness. I should mentioned that we will never force you to host your code on Gitness. You will be able to use Gitness Pipelines with other code hosting providers, including Gitea. I think the challenge with starting a new project is that it would result in Drone feeling completely abandoned because there would be zero investment going forward. We want to bring the community with us. I really do think Harness is breathing new life into the Drone project with this rebranding (12 full time developers and counting) and I am really excited to see where we are a year from now. PS glad to hear you like Drone. I hope you will consider testing out Gitness at some point and letting us know what you think. It is still early days, but the team is making improvements daily. Hit us up in our Slack channel if there is anything we can do to help.
petre 3y ago
Gitness. Silly name, sounds like and adjective and is only a letter away from gitless.
- djmips 3y ago
  Good name.
- bradrydzewski 3y ago
  It is a portmanteau of Git and Harness
manugarg 3y ago
I won't trust Harness with anything open source. It's the same company that killed the open source Drone CI after acquiring it. They changed the license such that you could contribute to it but could not use it if your revenue was more than 1 million USD. They didn't fix bugs that were well known to them because they were working on the enterprise version of it.
- drackomalkavian 3y ago
  I may be wrong but I think that DroneCI did not change its license. Before you could use it for free if your revenue was less than 1 million USD which is what is now.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    They did change it, but they changed it two years before the acquisition [0]. [0] https://github.com/harness/gitness/commit/ce3855812bb00dbf1993d8663b6100b272e104dd https://github.com/harness/gitness/commit/ce3855812bb00dbf19...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- remram 3y ago
  I went to check on this, and it seems that https://github.com/harness/drone https://github.com/harness/drone redirects to harness/gitness. I'm now very confused. The "Community Edition" links on https://docs.drone.io/ https://docs.drone.io/ are all broken because of this.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Gitness is a continuation of Drone: they incorporated it in one big PR [0]. Cynically, when coupled with the CTA to star on GitHub, it feels like they did it this way to preserve the star and fork counts. [0] https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/ https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/
nikolay 3y ago
Oh, the typical TechCrunch crap again - this is NOT a GitHub competitor!
Roark66 3y ago
It is interesting how many teams and even large businesses fall into the github/gitlab/atlassian trap. I worked for a couple that spend a shit-ton of money to have some measure of "cloud agnostics" while they throw out their Jenkins servers and they migrate all of their cicd to github, gitlab or atlassian. With github it is a SaaS service. With Gitlab, they have an "enterprise" version. In quotes because the "enterprise" version has no scaling support. You can't run more than one active node. And if you use their special "geo" feature for read only nodes they can't run cicd. It is really ridiculous any large business would migrate from a couple of fleets of Jenkins to this. But hey, gotta do what business decided to do.
- permissionrate 3y ago
  When you say Gitlab "enterprise" is this the on-prem version or something else? They do have SaaS too right?
xwowsersx 3y ago
I hate to focus on this, but the website, https://gitness.com/ https://gitness.com/, is absolutely horrible. Especially on mobile. The scrolljacking seems outright hostile and the entire site feels janky and broken. You don't need scrolljacking to provide a compelling or visually differentiated design experience.
- reidrac 3y ago
  I was looking for the code and that "Star us on GitHub" link isn't great. I want to see the code, not star the repo; is that link going to star the repo? (it doesn't, is just a link to the github repo)
hargup 3y ago
Thye aren't really competing with GitHub, which is more of consumer tool, but more with the enterprise focused GitLab which bundles CI/CD along with code hosting and bunch of other things. Their focus is primarilily on Enterprise developer needs and bundling CI/CD, Internal Developer Platforms, Security, Compliance and now code hosting. They want to be the one shop for everything developer experience inside an enterprise. [Source: Not a customer or a user or employee, was at their conference in SF today]
moondev 3y ago
Is dark mode available or am I overlooking it? Pretty impressive so far, the pipeline tool is surprisingly robust already. "gist-like" snippet management would be awesome in this.
- bradrydzewski 3y ago
  Yes. Dark mode is coming. Code Snippet management is a great suggestion and we will absolutely pick this up. Thanks for testing it out. Hit us up in our Slack channel if you have any future suggestions or if there is anything we can do to help.
dispoacc9738 3y ago
[dead]
dspillett 3y ago
I'm not convinced but it only being gotten on GitHub… I understand it being on GitHub because that might get them more traction, but should the not be hiding primarily on their own text?
pabs3 3y ago
I can't find any git repos on gitness.com, where are they?
- sbandi 3y ago
  We have not launched our saas version yet. Our first launch focused on the open source, self hosted version. Saas version will be coming soon. Please stay tuned.
  - pabs3 3y ago
    Great. If possible, it would be great if Gitness (both the SaaS and FOSS self-hosted version) could have enough of an API that Software Heritage could list and archive all repos (and maybe even get notifications on updates). It would also be great if you could use server-side rendering instead of JavaScript for most pages so that search engines and archiving tools can easily save all the data. https://www.softwareheritage.org/ https://www.softwareheritage.org/ https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveBot https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveBot
cmjs 3y ago
Interestingly it looks like this is partly a fork of Gitea (or at least, incorporates large amounts of code from Gitea): https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/files#diff-4673a3aba01813b595de187a7a6e9e63a3491d55821606fecd9f13a10c188a1d https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/files#diff-4673...
- bradrydzewski 3y ago
  It is largely based on the existing Drone repository, but for Git capabilities we used the Gitea fork of https://github.com/gogs/git-module https://github.com/gogs/git-module
  - cmjs 3y ago
    I see, thanks for the clarification.

102 points by m-watson 3y ago

Gitness is built around Drone CI... Oh reading the comments, it's an extension of Drone. How compatible have Drone CI and it's open-source fork Woodpecker? I'm curious whether one might expect any kind of engine swap to work.

maxloh 3y ago

They should host a demo instance like Gitea does.

sbandi 3y ago
Thank you for the feedback! We are planning on working on it.

mdaniel 3y ago

please submit original sources <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37600545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37600545 (I would argue for this one, since it provides the most context) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601002

koito17 3y ago

How does this compare to e.g. Forgejo, Gitea, Gogs, self-hosted GitLab, or other alternatives? Forgejo in particular has self-hosted actions runners that can be registered offline, and the runners themselves can be given labels and execute most existing GitHub actions (in fact, the yaml format they use is intentionally meant to be compatible with GitHub actions). While the Pipelines UI looks nice, it hides all the very real details of deployment (and configuration) in a variety of environments. This is one thing Forgejo does well compared to e.g. Gitea for CI/CD, thanks to being very flexible in configuring runner secrets, registering runners, and so on. The runners themselves are also designed to run with rootless docker-in-docker. There is also the security aspect to consider. e.g. how does Pipelines prevent secrets from spilling in logs or people running bitcoin miners in CI? Does it offer a better level of security than Forgejo/Gitea here? The reason I am emphasizing CI/CD is because hosting code and a bug tracker is only one small aspect of GitHub IMO. The real big things are its popularity and GitHub Actions. It's not enough for many people (and businesses) to simply host code anymore. Many now expect commits pushed to certain branches to execute a variety of workflows -- from unit tests to full-on Kubernetes deployments.

twunde 3y ago
Harness actually came from the opposite direction where they started out with CD, bought a CI comment (drone.io if memory serves) and are now introducing git hosting. So it's likely CI/CD is better than the git hosting
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
TheBrokenRail 3y ago
> Forgejo in particular has self-hosted actions runners that can be registered offline, and the runners themselves can be given labels and execute most existing GitHub actions (in fact, the yaml format they use is intentionally meant to be compatible with GitHub actions). This is also part of Gitea. Which makes since because Forgejo is a soft-fork of Gitea.

prepend 3y ago

> There hasn’t been a new Git repo launch in almost a decade,” Bansal told me. “Now you have GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket from Atlassian, but that’s really it Seems odd that he wouldn’t know about Sourcehut (2018) and Gitea (2016).

lolinder 3y ago
And Codeberg (2019), which was based on Gitea until they forked it into Forgejo (2022).
- remram 3y ago
  Codeberg is a service not a separate software. Just like you wouldn't count salsa.debian.org or framagit.org as separate from GitLab, they are the same with maybe some local customization.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    At this point Codeberg is clearly distinct from Gitea and is more thoroughly open-source in its nature than anything Harness is going to bring out, but yes, you could combine it with Forgejo if that feels more fair.
    - remram 3y ago
      At this point Codeberg is running Forgejo not Gitea.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        Yes, that's what I was saying.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Mind you I use (and thus pay for) Sourcehut: the vast majority of folks won't be cross shopping Sourcehut and GitHub. As it stands now the UX is (to put it charitably) bad. There's a lot to like, but overall Sourcehut is disjointed rather than cohesive. The workflow itself is also an acquired taste. With a bit of spit and polish Sourcehut could be quite nice to use, but it's not there yet. Hell, I bet Drew could pick up some of the UX folks that GitHub laid off. The others mentioned are more or less knockoffs of GitHub, because at one point GitHub was quite worth emulating.

v3ss0n 3y ago

looks more complicated than forgeo/gitea . gitea already servers all github needs for us

MassiveBonk51 3y ago

What's the differentiator for this? Tighter integration into their other offerings?

lazypenguin 3y ago

Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor which hosts their open-source code...on GitHub... with a prominent call to arms on their landing page to star their repository...on GitHub... If you don't even use your own product why should anyone else use it?

booi 3y ago
Perhaps it’s a mirror just to try to draw people in? If you wanted to start a new social network you would market the hell out of it on Facebook so
Prickle 3y ago
I assume that they used GitHub during the development of Gitness. It would be a bit risky to build your new git competitor inside itself, surely?
- dcow 3y ago
  It's also kinda a hallmark of a mature computer anything to use itself in some way. You bootstrap your compiler using another until you can self compile. You write a build tool plugin which uses an older version of itself to enhance its own build. Intel probably uses intel chips to design future intel chips. It happens all the time and aesthetically computer nerds are drawn to this type of beauty.
  - askiiart 3y ago
    From elsewhere in the thread: > We have been using Gitness to develop Gitness for the last 6 months. We do mirror on GitHub as a backup. But we also want to meet the community where they exist today, which is GitHub.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rustd 3y ago
We have been using Gitness to develop Gitness for the last 6 months. We do mirror on GitHub as a backup. But we also want to meet the community where they exist today, which is GitHub.

dispoacc9738 3y ago

[dead]

koolba 3y ago

> That’s changing today with the launch of the Gitness open-source Git repository and the Harness Code Repository, the hosted and managed version of Gitness. Wouldn’t this violate the git trademark policy? https://git-scm.com/about/trademark https://git-scm.com/about/trademark From that link: >> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service without Conservancy's written permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.

troymc 3y ago
You might be right, but there are already many products out there that have been violating that trademark policy for quite some time, e.g. GitLab, GitKraken, SmartGit, ... My guess is that Software Freedom Conservancy (a nonprofit) has more important things to do than go after those projects for trademark policy violations.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lolinder 3y ago
  Some of those were specifically grandfathered in to the policy [0]: > Careful readers among you may now be wondering about GitHub, GitLab, Gitolite, etc. And now we get back to why it took over a year to get the trademark granted. > The USPTO initially rejected our application as confusingly similar to the existing trademark on GitHub, which was filed in 2008. While one might imagine where the "Git" in GitHub comes from, by the time we applied to the USPTO, both marks had been widely used in parallel for years. So we worked out an agreement with GitHub which basically says "we are mutually OK with the other trademark existing". > So GitHub is essentially outside the scope of the trademark policy, due to the history. We also decided to explicitly grandfather some major projects that were using similar portmanteaus, but which had generally been good citizens of the Git ecosystem (building on Git in a useful way, not breaking compatibility). Those include GitLab, JGit, libgit2, and some others. The reasoning was generally that it would be a big pain for those projects, which have established their own brands, to have to switch names. It's hard to hold them responsible for picking a name that violated a policy that didn't yet exist. [0] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw@sigill.intra.peff.net/ https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...

nik736 3y ago

I can’t find any screenshots, am I missing something?

rustd 3y ago
Here’s a short overview video of the product. https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?si=MFP6bpMMUGMxUQCp https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?si=MFP6bpMMUGMxUQCp
- mdaniel 3y ago
  that was helpful, thank you "upgrade to harness software delivery platform" <https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=96 https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=96> ... to do what? https://docs.gitness.com/ https://docs.gitness.com/ makes no such mention of upgrading or why anyone would want to and of course it's got all the AIz https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=118 https://youtu.be/TDEIiVuM6IY?t=118 which I'd presume is this https://www.harness.io/products/aida https://www.harness.io/products/aida and yet https://www.harness.io/legal/aida-terms https://www.harness.io/legal/aida-terms says "AIDA may utilize multiple generative AI systems, including those from third parties, to generate Output. These systems may include various models, algorithms, and datasets. As a result, the Output generated by AIDA may incorporate contributions from different sources. Harness is not responsible for such third parties’ acts or omissions in relation to the processing of Submissions, or generation of Output." which feels kind of like a cop-out in a document entitled "AIDA Terms"

eka1 3y ago

So here's the GitHub project: https://github.com/harness/gitness https://github.com/harness/gitness How does the project already have 27k stars? Surely this was not public before? Or do you think drone always had this product?

lolinder 3y ago
Looking at the forks list, it looks like they converted their old "drone" repo into the "gitness" repo: https://github.com/harness/gitness/forks https://github.com/harness/gitness/forks So the stars all carried over. The old drone link now redirects to gitness: https://github.com/harness/drone https://github.com/harness/drone
- eka1 3y ago
  You are right, this PR is where they introduced git to drone: https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/ https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/ Would have been awesome to see this as a separate project, but I guess they would like to ride the drone CI wave. I like drone, unsure about including git in there
  - bradrydzewski 3y ago
    I see Gitness as the evolution of Drone. We are using the Drone pipeline engine and a ton of Drone code under the hood, but we are also adding Code hosting capabilities. And at some point, when you upgrade to the next major version of Drone, you will actually be upgrading to Gitness. I should mentioned that we will never force you to host your code on Gitness. You will be able to use Gitness Pipelines with other code hosting providers, including Gitea. I think the challenge with starting a new project is that it would result in Drone feeling completely abandoned because there would be zero investment going forward. We want to bring the community with us. I really do think Harness is breathing new life into the Drone project with this rebranding (12 full time developers and counting) and I am really excited to see where we are a year from now. PS glad to hear you like Drone. I hope you will consider testing out Gitness at some point and letting us know what you think. It is still early days, but the team is making improvements daily. Hit us up in our Slack channel if there is anything we can do to help.

petre 3y ago

Gitness. Silly name, sounds like and adjective and is only a letter away from gitless.

djmips 3y ago
Good name.
bradrydzewski 3y ago
It is a portmanteau of Git and Harness

manugarg 3y ago

I won't trust Harness with anything open source. It's the same company that killed the open source Drone CI after acquiring it. They changed the license such that you could contribute to it but could not use it if your revenue was more than 1 million USD. They didn't fix bugs that were well known to them because they were working on the enterprise version of it.

drackomalkavian 3y ago
I may be wrong but I think that DroneCI did not change its license. Before you could use it for free if your revenue was less than 1 million USD which is what is now.
- lolinder 3y ago
  They did change it, but they changed it two years before the acquisition [0]. [0] https://github.com/harness/gitness/commit/ce3855812bb00dbf1993d8663b6100b272e104dd https://github.com/harness/gitness/commit/ce3855812bb00dbf19...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
remram 3y ago
I went to check on this, and it seems that https://github.com/harness/drone https://github.com/harness/drone redirects to harness/gitness. I'm now very confused. The "Community Edition" links on https://docs.drone.io/ https://docs.drone.io/ are all broken because of this.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Gitness is a continuation of Drone: they incorporated it in one big PR [0]. Cynically, when coupled with the CTA to star on GitHub, it feels like they did it this way to preserve the star and fork counts. [0] https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/ https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/

nikolay 3y ago

Oh, the typical TechCrunch crap again - this is NOT a GitHub competitor!

Roark66 3y ago

It is interesting how many teams and even large businesses fall into the github/gitlab/atlassian trap. I worked for a couple that spend a shit-ton of money to have some measure of "cloud agnostics" while they throw out their Jenkins servers and they migrate all of their cicd to github, gitlab or atlassian. With github it is a SaaS service. With Gitlab, they have an "enterprise" version. In quotes because the "enterprise" version has no scaling support. You can't run more than one active node. And if you use their special "geo" feature for read only nodes they can't run cicd. It is really ridiculous any large business would migrate from a couple of fleets of Jenkins to this. But hey, gotta do what business decided to do.

permissionrate 3y ago
When you say Gitlab "enterprise" is this the on-prem version or something else? They do have SaaS too right?

xwowsersx 3y ago

I hate to focus on this, but the website, https://gitness.com/ https://gitness.com/, is absolutely horrible. Especially on mobile. The scrolljacking seems outright hostile and the entire site feels janky and broken. You don't need scrolljacking to provide a compelling or visually differentiated design experience.

reidrac 3y ago
I was looking for the code and that "Star us on GitHub" link isn't great. I want to see the code, not star the repo; is that link going to star the repo? (it doesn't, is just a link to the github repo)

hargup 3y ago

Thye aren't really competing with GitHub, which is more of consumer tool, but more with the enterprise focused GitLab which bundles CI/CD along with code hosting and bunch of other things. Their focus is primarilily on Enterprise developer needs and bundling CI/CD, Internal Developer Platforms, Security, Compliance and now code hosting. They want to be the one shop for everything developer experience inside an enterprise. [Source: Not a customer or a user or employee, was at their conference in SF today]

moondev 3y ago

Is dark mode available or am I overlooking it? Pretty impressive so far, the pipeline tool is surprisingly robust already. "gist-like" snippet management would be awesome in this.

bradrydzewski 3y ago
Yes. Dark mode is coming. Code Snippet management is a great suggestion and we will absolutely pick this up. Thanks for testing it out. Hit us up in our Slack channel if you have any future suggestions or if there is anything we can do to help.

dispoacc9738 3y ago

[dead]

dspillett 3y ago

I'm not convinced but it only being gotten on GitHub… I understand it being on GitHub because that might get them more traction, but should the not be hiding primarily on their own text?

pabs3 3y ago

I can't find any git repos on gitness.com, where are they?

sbandi 3y ago
We have not launched our saas version yet. Our first launch focused on the open source, self hosted version. Saas version will be coming soon. Please stay tuned.
- pabs3 3y ago
  Great. If possible, it would be great if Gitness (both the SaaS and FOSS self-hosted version) could have enough of an API that Software Heritage could list and archive all repos (and maybe even get notifications on updates). It would also be great if you could use server-side rendering instead of JavaScript for most pages so that search engines and archiving tools can easily save all the data. https://www.softwareheritage.org/ https://www.softwareheritage.org/ https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveBot https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveBot

cmjs 3y ago

Interestingly it looks like this is partly a fork of Gitea (or at least, incorporates large amounts of code from Gitea): https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/files#diff-4673a3aba01813b595de187a7a6e9e63a3491d55821606fecd9f13a10c188a1d https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/files#diff-4673...

bradrydzewski 3y ago
It is largely based on the existing Drone repository, but for Git capabilities we used the Gitea fork of https://github.com/gogs/git-module https://github.com/gogs/git-module
- cmjs 3y ago
  I see, thanks for the clarification.