5 ms·

OneDev – Self-hosted Git server with CI/CD, Kanban, and packages

103 points by jcbhmr 1y ago

kerlekarle 1y ago
I actually have a side project running on it. The CI documentation is really lacking and it was hard setting it up. Other than that I am happy with it.
aime4money 1y ago
Fossil is that you?
- fair_enough 1y ago
  Fossil started as "not invented here", but it has grown into something I like a lot more than Git. Knowing how to use a version control system should be an incidental skill (akin to simple shell commands like "cp" and "ln"), not something that needs to be mentioned in a job posting's role description. I also appreciate that the default workflow for undoing bad merges is a whiteout rather than a true "delete". To each his own, but having worked with CVS, SVN, Perforce, Git, and Fossil, the centralized model is much less work for release engineering and administration most of the time. If I were a maintainer of the Linux kernel of one of the many Linux distros where you have potentially thousands of contributors to one codebase, I would use git because it scales up better. However, I wouldn't underestimate the value of scaling down well, especially for all the people around here building some startup out of a barndominium. A VCS that includes its own GUI-based admin tool and is simple enough to used by some high school intro to web design class is a good thing in my book.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    I was turned off by the necessity of using users and permissions; it feels unnecessary for local development and kind of a PITA if you have many repos. It works exactly as advertised though; my gripes aren't technical.
    - fair_enough 1y ago
      I can understand that, but it sounds more like an argument in favor of ye-olde CVS than git... Not that I ever have nor desire to manage my own git server, which would involve its own authentication and administrative tasks. Note: Before some third person pitches in their condescending two cents on the limitations of CVS, nobody here is recommending CVS.
pixel_popping 1y ago
[dead]
goofiw 1y ago
This looks super cool - especially given the changes to github’s leadership. One minor note - on mobile safari there didn’t seem to be any state update on press of buttons, and submission was not clear until the backend server seemed to respond. My internet connection is a little slow and it was unclear tapping the button worked. I would expect a little loading state or at least ui to show the button as disabled during submission.
kachapopopow 1y ago
Seems like heavier version of gitea with a pricing section.
odie5533 1y ago
Why do people self-host things like this instead of Github or Gitlab? I don't want to maintain more services for my services. Who has time for that.
- d12bb 1y ago
  Especially as self-hosting means loosing the community aspect of GitHub. Every potential contributor already has an account. Every new team member already knows how to use it.
  - nirvdrum 1y ago
    You’re assuming people are self-hosting open source projects on their gut servers. That’s often not the case. Even if it were, GitHub irked a lot of people using their code to train Copilot. I self-host gitea. It took maybe 5 minutes to set up on TrueNAS and even that was only because I wanted to set up different datasets so I could snapshot independently. I love it. I have privacy. Integrating into a backup strategy is quite easy —- it goes along with the rest of my off-site NAS backup without me needing to retain local clones on my desktop. And my CI runners are substantially faster than what I get through GitHub Actions. The complexity and maintenance burden of self-hosting is way overblown. The benefits are often understated and the deficiencies of whatever hosted service left unaddressed.
    - rmoriz 1y ago
      Microsoft/GitHub has no model training. How do you think Copilot works? Also if you provide open source, people and companies are gonna use it.
      - bigfishrunning 1y ago
        When I publish open source code, I don't mind if people or companies use it, or maybe even learn from it. What I don't like is feeding it into a giant plagiarism machine that is perpetuating the centralization of power on the internet.
eikenberry 1y ago
Code discussion anywhere anytime Select any code or diff to start discussion. Suggest and apply changes. Discussions stay with code to help code understanding. How do the discussions stay with the code? Git notes?
- zparky 1y ago
  From their docs, apparently it just modifies the source code, although their LOC didn't change when they hit save in their video demo, so I'm not sure. https://docs.onedev.io/tutorials/code/code-review#free-style-review-on-commit-and-file:~:text=Further%2C%20source%20file%20will%20be%20annotated https://docs.onedev.io/tutorials/code/code-review#free-style...
Havoc 1y ago
I recall looking at it maybe 2-3 years ago and deciding against it. And it never seemed to get traction in the selfhosted community either. ...but I can't for the life of me recall why. Definitely wasn't a radioactive red flag issue...but some aspect around CI wasn't for me. In general though with things like this that carry an open license and have a docker image you're better off trying it yourself than listening to randoms like me
- s09dfhks 1y ago
  This is why I dropped it. The CI/CD configurations were some weird proprietary format where as gitlab/gitea/forejo are all (mostly) feature compliant with my already existing github workflow files
  - elevation 1y ago
    I evaluated moving from Gitea to OneDev before Gitea had CI. OneDev was useable, I didn't mind it, but I don't run java anywhere else so I decided against adopting it. A few years later and now Gitea/Forgejo are at feature parity.
- jamesu 1y ago
  For me the bus factor was a bit of a red flag, plus I prefer the layout in forgejo/gitea. Also didn't like that there wasn't really any obvious way to link in an external CI, and of course it's written in java so had that to factor in too.
hk1337 1y ago
Ooh! My interest is peaked seeing it is written in Java.
- velcrovan 1y ago
  *piqued
hamdingers 1y ago
The docker quickstart asks me to mount the docker socket, an incredibly dangerous act that fundamentally breaks the isolation that containers are supposed to provide. I see no attempt to explain why this level of access is necessary. I can guess why you think you need it, but whatever the reason it's not good enough. If you need job workers or some other kind of container, tell me how to run those with docker compose.
- franga2000 1y ago
  It breaks the isolation for that one container, the rest are just fine. That's clearly done in order to dynamically spin up CI/CD containers, which you obviously can't do with something like compose. I get why you don't want to do that on a machine running other things and I wouldn't either, but you're pretending like this is such a strange, unnecessary and unexpected thing to require, when in reality, basically everything does it this way and there isn't really a good alternative without a ton of additional complexity the vast majority of people won't need.
  - worldsayshi 1y ago
    Isn't kaniko designed to solve this?
    - franga2000 1y ago
      As far as I know kaniko handles the "I'm a CI job inside a container and I want to build a container image" part. The reason CI/CD runners need socket access is to create those job containers in the first place. Using Podman to create job containers inside the app Docker container would be a solution, but Podman containers have many subtle incompatibilities with Docker and its ecosystem, so it makes sense they wouldn't want to use that, at least by default.
  - hamdingers 1y ago
    > It breaks the isolation for that one container, the rest are just fine. Wrong. A container with access to the socket can compromise any other container, and start new containers with privileged access to the host system. It compromises everything. This is a risk worth flagging.
johntash 1y ago
It looks cool, but I think some/most of the features on the front page are behind a paywall? I'll add it to my list of things to try out though, having more competition in the space is definitely a good thing.

103 points by jcbhmr 1y ago

I actually have a side project running on it. The CI documentation is really lacking and it was hard setting it up. Other than that I am happy with it.

aime4money 1y ago

Fossil is that you?

fair_enough 1y ago
Fossil started as "not invented here", but it has grown into something I like a lot more than Git. Knowing how to use a version control system should be an incidental skill (akin to simple shell commands like "cp" and "ln"), not something that needs to be mentioned in a job posting's role description. I also appreciate that the default workflow for undoing bad merges is a whiteout rather than a true "delete". To each his own, but having worked with CVS, SVN, Perforce, Git, and Fossil, the centralized model is much less work for release engineering and administration most of the time. If I were a maintainer of the Linux kernel of one of the many Linux distros where you have potentially thousands of contributors to one codebase, I would use git because it scales up better. However, I wouldn't underestimate the value of scaling down well, especially for all the people around here building some startup out of a barndominium. A VCS that includes its own GUI-based admin tool and is simple enough to used by some high school intro to web design class is a good thing in my book.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  I was turned off by the necessity of using users and permissions; it feels unnecessary for local development and kind of a PITA if you have many repos. It works exactly as advertised though; my gripes aren't technical.
  - fair_enough 1y ago
    I can understand that, but it sounds more like an argument in favor of ye-olde CVS than git... Not that I ever have nor desire to manage my own git server, which would involve its own authentication and administrative tasks. Note: Before some third person pitches in their condescending two cents on the limitations of CVS, nobody here is recommending CVS.

pixel_popping 1y ago

[dead]

goofiw 1y ago

This looks super cool - especially given the changes to github’s leadership. One minor note - on mobile safari there didn’t seem to be any state update on press of buttons, and submission was not clear until the backend server seemed to respond. My internet connection is a little slow and it was unclear tapping the button worked. I would expect a little loading state or at least ui to show the button as disabled during submission.

kachapopopow 1y ago

Seems like heavier version of gitea with a pricing section.

odie5533 1y ago

Why do people self-host things like this instead of Github or Gitlab? I don't want to maintain more services for my services. Who has time for that.

d12bb 1y ago
Especially as self-hosting means loosing the community aspect of GitHub. Every potential contributor already has an account. Every new team member already knows how to use it.
- nirvdrum 1y ago
  You’re assuming people are self-hosting open source projects on their gut servers. That’s often not the case. Even if it were, GitHub irked a lot of people using their code to train Copilot. I self-host gitea. It took maybe 5 minutes to set up on TrueNAS and even that was only because I wanted to set up different datasets so I could snapshot independently. I love it. I have privacy. Integrating into a backup strategy is quite easy —- it goes along with the rest of my off-site NAS backup without me needing to retain local clones on my desktop. And my CI runners are substantially faster than what I get through GitHub Actions. The complexity and maintenance burden of self-hosting is way overblown. The benefits are often understated and the deficiencies of whatever hosted service left unaddressed.
  - rmoriz 1y ago
    Microsoft/GitHub has no model training. How do you think Copilot works? Also if you provide open source, people and companies are gonna use it.
    - bigfishrunning 1y ago
      When I publish open source code, I don't mind if people or companies use it, or maybe even learn from it. What I don't like is feeding it into a giant plagiarism machine that is perpetuating the centralization of power on the internet.

eikenberry 1y ago

Code discussion anywhere anytime Select any code or diff to start discussion. Suggest and apply changes. Discussions stay with code to help code understanding. How do the discussions stay with the code? Git notes?

zparky 1y ago
From their docs, apparently it just modifies the source code, although their LOC didn't change when they hit save in their video demo, so I'm not sure. https://docs.onedev.io/tutorials/code/code-review#free-style-review-on-commit-and-file:~:text=Further%2C%20source%20file%20will%20be%20annotated https://docs.onedev.io/tutorials/code/code-review#free-style...

Havoc 1y ago

I recall looking at it maybe 2-3 years ago and deciding against it. And it never seemed to get traction in the selfhosted community either. ...but I can't for the life of me recall why. Definitely wasn't a radioactive red flag issue...but some aspect around CI wasn't for me. In general though with things like this that carry an open license and have a docker image you're better off trying it yourself than listening to randoms like me

s09dfhks 1y ago
This is why I dropped it. The CI/CD configurations were some weird proprietary format where as gitlab/gitea/forejo are all (mostly) feature compliant with my already existing github workflow files
- elevation 1y ago
  I evaluated moving from Gitea to OneDev before Gitea had CI. OneDev was useable, I didn't mind it, but I don't run java anywhere else so I decided against adopting it. A few years later and now Gitea/Forgejo are at feature parity.
jamesu 1y ago
For me the bus factor was a bit of a red flag, plus I prefer the layout in forgejo/gitea. Also didn't like that there wasn't really any obvious way to link in an external CI, and of course it's written in java so had that to factor in too.

hk1337 1y ago

Ooh! My interest is peaked seeing it is written in Java.

velcrovan 1y ago
*piqued

hamdingers 1y ago

The docker quickstart asks me to mount the docker socket, an incredibly dangerous act that fundamentally breaks the isolation that containers are supposed to provide. I see no attempt to explain why this level of access is necessary. I can guess why you think you need it, but whatever the reason it's not good enough. If you need job workers or some other kind of container, tell me how to run those with docker compose.

franga2000 1y ago
It breaks the isolation for that one container, the rest are just fine. That's clearly done in order to dynamically spin up CI/CD containers, which you obviously can't do with something like compose. I get why you don't want to do that on a machine running other things and I wouldn't either, but you're pretending like this is such a strange, unnecessary and unexpected thing to require, when in reality, basically everything does it this way and there isn't really a good alternative without a ton of additional complexity the vast majority of people won't need.
- worldsayshi 1y ago
  Isn't kaniko designed to solve this?
  - franga2000 1y ago
    As far as I know kaniko handles the "I'm a CI job inside a container and I want to build a container image" part. The reason CI/CD runners need socket access is to create those job containers in the first place. Using Podman to create job containers inside the app Docker container would be a solution, but Podman containers have many subtle incompatibilities with Docker and its ecosystem, so it makes sense they wouldn't want to use that, at least by default.
- hamdingers 1y ago
  > It breaks the isolation for that one container, the rest are just fine. Wrong. A container with access to the socket can compromise any other container, and start new containers with privileged access to the host system. It compromises everything. This is a risk worth flagging.

johntash 1y ago

It looks cool, but I think some/most of the features on the front page are behind a paywall? I'll add it to my list of things to try out though, having more competition in the space is definitely a good thing.