21 ms·

Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

638 points by jslakro 6mo ago

steveharing1 6mo ago
Having options is really important bcs relying heavily on one thing is not something that goes always well
unwoven 6mo ago
> The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos Yup and this is where I pass on anything other than GitHub.
- esafak 6mo ago
  I get it for open source projects but at least use something nice like depot.dev for commercial ventures.
- dangus 6mo ago
  I was going to say that I’d be happy to run a local Mac mini to be a runner but I noticed that Forgejo runners are only built for Linux. It seems like to be a serious CI platform they really need to change Windows and Mac binaries for runners so you can build for those platforms. And this is more of a Forgejo issue than a Codeberg issue specifically. But also, I’d also throw out there the idea that CI doesn’t have to be at the same website as your source control. It’s nice that GitHub actions are conveniently part of the product but it’s not even really the top CI system out there.
  - mfenniak 6mo ago
    Forgejo is committed to using exclusively Free Software for it's own project development. Windows and Mac versions of the Forgejo Runner are built in the project's CI system as a minimal check to ensure platform compatibility, but due to the project's commitment, the project doesn't do integration testing on these platform. And therefore doesn't distribute untested software. A contributor maintains a tested re-release of Forgejo Runner for Windows: https://github.com/Crown0815/Forgejo-runner-windows-builder https://github.com/Crown0815/Forgejo-runner-windows-builder But, pull it down and build it, and it will work.
- thinkxl 6mo ago
  I've had a good experience with Woodpecker CI. I've heard that installation and integration with ForgeJo isn't easy, but I deploy everything to my homelab using Dokku, where I push a Dockerfile, mount a volume (on setup), and it's good to go. I assume this isn't optimal for a business setup, but for personal projects, I don't miss GitHub Actions at all.
- maccard 6mo ago
  Agreed - this is also where Github is the most unreliable. our _number one_ reason for build failures is "GHA being down/degraded" in 2026.
  - jamiemallers 6mo ago
    [dead]
- conradev 6mo ago
  GitHub is free, but the runners are slow and increasingly unreliable. I use Namespace (https://namespace.so https://namespace.so) and I hook it up both to my personal GitHub as well as my personal Forgejo. I’m in the process of moving from the former to the latter!
  - ekropotin 6mo ago
    I didn’t really realize the degree of their slowness, until I migrated one of the projects on a self-hosted gitea and runners. This setup is just breezing! It’s an order of magnitude faster we’re talking about. Granted, self-hosting git is not feasible for everyone, but GitHub + self hosted runners seems like a very good option.
- hrmtst93837 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- account42 6mo ago
  E E <- you are here E
InitialPhase55 6mo ago
Might be more difficult for people with private repos, as I recall Codeberg doesn't like private repos on their platform.
- systems 6mo ago
  I just noticed this, they dont allow private repos (with few exceptions) I wonder why they dont just offer unlimited private repos for (reasonably) paid accounts , I think maybe a 40 dollar per year (or 4 dollar monthly), is low and encouraging , and should be welcomed by many , I hope they consider it
  - wongarsu 6mo ago
    Codeberg is a German nonprofit. To keep their tax-advantaged status, anything they do has to follow the purpose established in their bylaws. That purpose is "to promote the creation, collection, distribution and preservation of Free Content (Open Content, Free Cultural Works) and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and their documentation in selfless work to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education. Furthermore, this also intends to raise awareness for the social and philosophical questions interconnected with this." I imagine they would argue that private repositories do not follow this purpose, as they are neither free content nor FOSS. I believe you could argue that charging a modest fee for private repositories to finance the hosting of FOSS repositories is in line with the purpose, but you get on thinner ice with that. It could quickly make them appear more like a company than like a nonprofit
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 6mo ago
  If you have a server, some cheap VPS will suffice, you can host a private git repo there without installing anything. Run this on your server: git init --bare foo.git and then on your PC you can do this: git clone user@yourserver.com:~/foo.git It's probably a good idea to make a separate user account on the server for it, though.
  - throwa356262 6mo ago
INTPenis 6mo ago
Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. That is what murders the impression of a product like codeberg. Sorry, just being frank. I want all competitors to large monopolies to succeed, but I also want to be able to do my job/passion.
- embedding-shape 6mo ago
  Maybe I'm too old school, but both GitHub and Codeberg for me are asyncronous "I want to send/share the code somehow", not "my active workspace I require to do work". But reading > the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. Makes it seem like GitHub/Codeberg has to be online for you to be able to code, is that really the case? If so, how does that happen, you only edit code directly in the GitHub web UI or how does one end up in that situation?
  - freedomben 6mo ago
    For me it's a soft block rather than a hard block. I use multiple computers so when I switch to the other one I usually do a git pull, and after every commit I do a push. If that gets interrupted, then I have resort to things like rsyncing over from the other system, but more than once I've lost work that way. I'm strongly considering just standing up a VM and using "just git" and foregoing any UI, but I make use of other features like CI/CD and Releases for distribution, so the VM strategy is still just a bandaid. When the remote is unavailable, it can be very disruptive.
    - SoftTalker 6mo ago
      > just standing up a VM and using "just git" That's what I do. Control your entire world yourself.
mplanchard 6mo ago
I've been mostly off the GitHub train since the MS acquisition, and think any alternative is a good alternative. Codeberg is great. I've also been very happy with sourcehut for most of my personal projects for some time. The email patch submission workflow is a tad bit unfamiliar for most, but IMO in today's era raising that barrier to entry is mostly a good thing for OSS projects. I also strongly prefer a simple CI environment (where you just run commands), which encourages you to actually be able to run your CI commands locally.
rvz 6mo ago
This was kind of predictable [0] and even self-hosting your own solution was done way before GitHub existed and now has better uptime than them. Now they are turning GitHub into a canteen for AI agents and their AI chatbots (Copilot, Tay.ai and Zoe) to feed them on your code if you don't opt out. > The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos Hosting was never free and if you do not want Codeberg to go the way of GitHub, you need to pay for it. Otherwise expect GitHub downtime to hit every week or so. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803
woodruffw 6mo ago
I think evaluating alternatives to GitHub is going to become increasingly important over the coming years. At the same time, I think these kinds of migrations discount how much GitHub has changed the table stakes/raised the bar for what makes a valuable source forge: it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI or accept one that can't natively build for a common set of end-user architectures. This on its own makes me pretty bearish on community-driven attempts to oust GitHub, even if ideologically I'm aligned with them: the real cost (both financial and in terms of complexity) of user expectations around source forges in 2026 is immense.
- wongarsu 6mo ago
  CI needs good integration into the source forge. But I don't really perceive Github actions as a huge benefit over the times when everone just set up CircleCI or whatever. As long as it can turn PR checks red, yellow and green and has a link to the logs I'm happy The whole PR and code review experience is much more important to me. Github is striving to set a high bar, but is also hilariously bad in some ways. Similarly the whole issue system is passable on Github, but doesn't really reach the state of the art of issue systems from 20 years ago
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- jamiemallers 6mo ago
  [dead]
- prmoustache 6mo ago
  > it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI Why? I know plenty of teams which are fine with repo and CI being separate tools as long as there is integration between the 2.
  - CuriouslyC 6mo ago
    Actions are bad, but they're free (to start) and just good enough that they're useful to set up something quick and dirty, and tempt you to try and scale it for a little while.
999900000999 6mo ago
GitHub gives you a lot for "free". In exchange they'll have no problem harvesting your data, and it would really surprise me if they aren't training on private repos too. I guess you can opt out and if they're opt out doesn't work oh well. On the other hand Codeberg doesn't let you create private repositories at all. So Copilot could still legally scrape your open source Codeberg repos. I don't see much of a point for most people. https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ >If you need private repositories for commercial projects (e.g. because you represent a company or are a developer that needs a space to host private freelance projects for your clients), we would highly recommend that you take a look at Forgejo. Forgejo is the Git hosting software that Codeberg runs. It is free software and relatively easy to self-host. Codeberg does not offer private hosting services.
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
  >On the other hand Codeberg doesn't let you create private repositories at all. are you sure about that? I'm fairly certain my repos on codeberg are all private but I could be mistaken.
  - mfenniak 6mo ago
    It is kinda incorrect and kinda correct. Codeberg allows you to create private repositories. However, their rules are clear that the intent of private repositories must be in support of Free software projects: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-private-repositories%3F https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-pri..., which for many people is effectively not allowing private repositories.
    - arcanemachiner 6mo ago
      My reading is: Don't attempt to store your media (photos, music, videos, etc.) collection there, and you won't have any issues.
      - 6mo ago
noirscape 6mo ago
I don't dislike Codeberg inherently, but it's not a "true" GitHub replacement. It can handle a good chunk of GitHub repositories (namely those for well established FOSS projects looking to have everything a proper capital P project has), but if you're just looking for a generic place to put your code projects that aren't necessarily intended for public release and support (ie. random automation scripts, scraps of concepts that never really got off the ground, things not super cleaned up), they're not really for that - private repositories are discouraged according to their FAQ and are very limited (up to 100mb). They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. At least Forgejo (software behind Codeberg) is FOSS, so you can do that and it should cover most of what you need (and while you're in the realm of having a server, a Pages-esque replacement is trivial since you're configuring a webserver anyway.) Maybe Gitlab.com, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with how Gitlab's "main" instance has changed over the years wrt features. Here's their FAQ on the matter, it's worth a read: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/
- real_joschi 6mo ago
  > They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/
  - noirscape 6mo ago
    From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage), and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seems more like it's meant for projects and organizations rather than individual people. The way it's described here indicates that using them to host your own blog/portfolio/what have you is considered to be abusing their services.
mrbluecoat 6mo ago
Is there a "Moving open source search from GitHub to XYZ, for lazy people"? When I'm looking for solutions to problems that open source might be able to solve, I find the fracturing of code hosting platforms an annoyance.
- fhennig 6mo ago
  Can you elaborate what the problem is? IMO hosting and search are quite decoupled, why not just search for "open source solution to problem XYZ" in your favorite search engine?
  - mrbluecoat 6mo ago
    I specifically like the filtering to say "permissive license in Go language"
throwa356262 6mo ago
Codeberg is not a 1-1 replacement for github/gitlab but for many people it is a better option. I really wish there was a way to support with them a smaller amount then €24. I dont use codeberg myself but I really want to support them.
- arcanemachiner 6mo ago
  I send them a couple bucks a month via Liberapay. I'm on mobile and short on time, but you can customize the donation amount easily.
- KomoD 6mo ago
  You can, €24 is just for the membership Wire transfer is €10 Stripe is €5 With PayPal you can send €0.01 if you want Or Liberapay, as little as €0.01 per week
ponkpanda 6mo ago
Repo hosting is the kind of thing that ought to be distributed/federated. The underlying protocol (git) already has the cryptographic primitives that decouples trust in the commit tree (GPG or SSH signing) with trust in the storage service (i.e. github/codeberg/whatever). All you need to house centrally is some SSH and/or gpg key server and some means of managing namespaces which would benefit from federation as well. You'd get the benefits of de-centralisation - no over-reliance on actors like MS or cloudflare. I suppose if enough people fan out to gitlab, bitbucket, self hosting, codeberg, you end up with something that organically approximates a formally decentralised git repo system.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- swiftcoder 6mo ago
  > Repo hosting is the kind of thing that ought to be distributed/federated. Hence Tangled and ForgeFed (which I believe is integrating in Forejo)
  - mikepurvis 6mo ago
    I hadn't heard of either of these, but I'm interested. I think at this point the bigger barrier to me with leaving GitHub (professionally, at least) is all the non-GitHub stuff that integrates nicely with it and badly or not at all with other solutions. And like, I don't blame tool providers for making a rational economic choice in that regard, but if leaving GitHub means leaving seamless Sentry, Depot, Linear, editor plugins, AI integrations, etc that makes it a tougher pill to swallow. I worked for years at a shop that had in-house GitLab and we felt this pain first hand all the time. GitLab tries to be a one-stop shop and own the whole project management and testing/deployment workflow by building everything in house, but there were always gaps and it was hard not to be jealous of places that just did everything on GitHub and could use whatever best in class saas stuff they wanted. Gitlab has been tracking a federation feature since at least 2018 [1], and I expect bitbucket, sourcehut, gitea, and others would move quickly on something like this as well, but there needs to be a protocol defined and some kind of plan for handling spam/abuse. [1]: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/work_items/16514 https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/work_items/16514
Jotalea 6mo ago
even better, selfhost your own gitea instance
- vaylian 6mo ago
  How do other people open pull/merge requests for your projects?
  - KomoD 6mo ago
    They make an account or you give them one?
  - swiftcoder 6mo ago
    Honest question: do you want them to? Most of us aren't running high-profile OSS projects, and drive-by PRs are a pretty widespread complaint about GitHub's model of opensource
  - rmi_ 6mo ago
    Just push to that instance, or, as Linus intended, send patches via e-mail.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
dalvrosa 6mo ago
Codeberg vs selfhosted Gitlab. What do you think?
- jayd16 6mo ago
  For what its worth, it's pretty easy to maintain a low traffic Gitlab instance.
- real_joschi 6mo ago
  I think the question is rather gitlab.com vs. self-hosted GitLab and Codeberg vs. self-hosted Forgejo.
  - dalvrosa 6mo ago
    Fair
I_am_tiberius 6mo ago
I wish they had a paid plan for private repositories that aren't FOSS.
- stock_toaster 6mo ago
  I recently ran across codefloe[1] recently in another thread[2], and have been considering it for private non-floss-related repos... haven't tried it out yet though, so mileage may vary. [1]: https://codefloe.com/ https://codefloe.com/ [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47487436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47487436
  - fatterypt 6mo ago
    I've been using codefloe for everything personal, and I couldn't be happier. It's been stable, snappy, and offers me everything I need. I don't miss GitHub a single bit
    - stock_toaster 6mo ago
      Thanks for the positive anecdote. That gives me more motivation to finally try it out.
cdrnsf 6mo ago
I've been using a self-hosted forgejo (which Codeberg uses and maintains) instance for all of my non-work projects and it's been great. I don't miss GitHub at all. I also keep it accessible only from Tailscale so that AI crawlers and such can speedily make their way into the sun.
- poorman 6mo ago
  Same. I installed Forgejo two months ago when Github wouldn't let me create agent accounts. It's been awesome. Any time I want a new feature I open my agent on the server and tell it to add the feature to Forgejo. Took all of 15 minutes for it to add a working Show/Hide "Viewed" files on the PR reviews.
  - huijzer 6mo ago
    You mean you upstream those changes or are you running your own fork?
- midasz 6mo ago
  Same - also installed a forgejo runner via docker so i've got CI. Forgejo has it's own artifactory/registry so the apps I make get a docker image and I just run that docker image. All on my own hardware.
- huijzer 6mo ago
  I have moved to self-host Forgejo a few years ago and I can also highly recommend. It's working great. I have posted a tutorial [1] (verified last month that it still works), and recently moved from Hetzner to 2 Raspberry Pi's for hosting the server and the runner [2]. It's great. Really rock solid. Has been more reliable and faster than GitHub. [1]: https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separate-runner https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separ... [2]: https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separate-runner https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separ...
- eblume 6mo ago
  Same! I've also recently exposed mine to the internet through a fly.io proxy, though. So far, no issues, but I'm keeping a close eye.
elzbardico 6mo ago
Really, they day I finally tire of github, I will just move to gitlab. git hosting is not something I want to wast my time yak shaving.
- huijzer 6mo ago
  I'm running Forgejo for years now and I spend almost no time on it. I just host it with my other services. Backups automatically with Syncthing and I manually check in on the server and run apt-get upgrade once every two weeks.
jjslocum3 6mo ago
I'm still more comfortable keeping my code in America.
mococa 6mo ago
> If you absolutely need macOS runners I’d recommend sticking with GitHub Actions on the GitHub repository... This is the only reason I haven’t migrated yet (I keep a mirror[1]). 1 - https://codeberg.org/willtobyte/carimbo https://codeberg.org/willtobyte/carimbo
codazoda 6mo ago
I love the simple design of the page. This is a random observations, but I noticed the author has an interesting "likes" button that is served from an API on https://dddddddddzzzz.org https://dddddddddzzzz.org, a curious and interesting looking domain. I'll have to go dig around his blog to see if he's written about this.
- KomoD 6mo ago
  > This is a random observations, but I noticed the author has an interesting "likes" button that is served from an API on https://dddddddddzzzz.org https://dddddddddzzzz.org, a curious and interesting looking domain. I'll have to go dig around his blog to see if he's written about this Here you go: https://openheart.fyi https://openheart.fyi
Arcuru 6mo ago
Does any service offer hosted Forgejo Actions Runners? Or Forgejo compatible CI? I want to pay for CI on my Codeberg projects, but I've been struggling to find something where I can just pay by the minute. I have projects that benefit from large CI runners but my usage is low enough that it makes no sense to host my own.
asim 6mo ago
Why? I want to understand why? Out of principle? I think some services just end up becoming foundational and we need to move on to other things for other things e.g if we're going to replace GitHub it's because we're creating new habits. Not because we're replacing like for like. That never works. What is a new code hosting platform offering. You know what, pair it with some app dev and great, now you've got something. But just hosting elsewhere it's got to be a major step change the way GitHub was from sourceforge and self hosting. Inherently the social aspects drove that and the power of git. Personally I think you have to intertwine the code hosting with app development using agents like a Google doc. Commits everytime there is a change. Every prompt creates a commit. I don't know. We don't need to reinvent the wheel for nothing.
- voxic11 6mo ago
  > What is a new code hosting platform offering. For me its providing uptime. Github is barely reaching one nine of availability these days.
- 0x3f 6mo ago
  Why does this post exist? I assume because of the Copilot story that's also trending and the subsequent loss of trust. Not sure if Github has serious alternatives, but the desire to move is not for 'nothing'.
- finnjohnsen2 6mo ago
  Geopolitics is a reason. Many individuals and companies are scrambling for safe alternatives to US tech. I live in Norway and there is a lot of this going on.
lijunle 6mo ago
The concerning part is commercial. That is why Cloudflare Pages/workers is a better option than GitHub pages or Vercel Pages.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
pfortuny 6mo ago
I am really really amazed at how many people discount this alternative because it does not work but do not realize that they are being slaves to Microsoft by using Github. Honestly, I do not get it.
- johnisgood 6mo ago
  Apparently they have issues with self-hosting and basic git usage so I am not surprised, but yes, so many open source advocates, yet they literally depend on Microsoft, a bit too much.
  - goku12 6mo ago
    > but yes, so many open source advocates, yet they literally depend on Microsoft, a bit too much. I have abandoned github and even gitlab for all intents and purposes. But there's another side to consider in this. It's always risky for the FOSS community to depend on a service that doesn't offer interoperability and freedom of migration. Ironically, Github is such a service built on a tool (git) that's built for maximum interop and migration. But the popularity of Github among the developer community isn't an accident. They worked really hard during their early stages as a startup, to gain the trust of community. Nobody foresaw Microsoft buying them at that stage (though you should really just assume that it would happen eventually). The reluctance of a lot of them to abandon the platform can be attributed to lack of principles - IF it was an isolated incident. But we see the same story repeating with several development platforms. NPM is an example. PyPI and crates.io are still independent, as far as I know. But they aren't free of corporate influences either. No matter how much we try to avoid them, the companies just buy their way into these platforms when they become popular enough. I'm not happy with this. But I don't know a solution either.
- d675 6mo ago
  What’s the hate on Microsoft?
  - pfortuny 6mo ago
    It's not hate, it is that everybody complains about their services and their predatory behavior but somehow Github gets a free pass. As if it were going to be free forever, and well maintained...
packetlost 6mo ago
tangled.org is another interesting take that's open source and built on ATProto (which I have mixed feelings about). Also radicle.xyz
sylware 6mo ago
codeberg.org still requires "javascript" aka one of the massive whatng cartel c++ written web engines. Do prefer sourcehut or others which are not web apps, in other words are web sites (classic web, or noscript/basic html for critical core functions at least, like issue tracking). microsoft carefully broke classic web support overtime, THX AGAIN MICROSOFT, WE LOVE YOU!
gitprolinux 6mo ago
I just have to say that I wrote my on hosting git service and eat my own stuff at gitbusiness.com
ronsor 6mo ago
The truth is that I publish OSS projects on GitHub because that's where the community is, and the issues/pull requests/discussions are a bonus. If I just want to host my code, I can self host or use an SSH/SFTP server as a git remote, and that's usually what I do.
- embedding-shape 6mo ago
  > I publish OSS projects on GitHub because that's where the community is And so we go, forever in circles, until enough of us move to other platforms regardless of where the existing community is. Just like how GitHub found its community in the early days, when most people (afaik) was using SourceForge, if anything. "The community" will always remain on GitHub, if everyone just upload code to where "the community" already is. If enough of us stop using GitHub by default, and instead use something else, eventually "the community" will be there too, but it is somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem, I admit. I myself workaround this by dropping the whole idea that I'm writing software for others, and I only write it for myself, so if people want it, go to my personal Gitea instance and grab it if you want, I couldn't care less about stars and "publicity" or whatever people nowadays care about. But I'm also lucky enough to already have a network, it might require other's to build their network on GitHub first, then also be able to do something similar, and it'll all work out in the end.
  - ronsor 6mo ago
    > "The community" will always remain on GitHub, if everyone just upload code to where "the community" already is. If enough of us stop using GitHub by default, and instead use something else, eventually "the community" will be there too, but it is somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem, I admit. SourceForge was abandoned due to UX issues and the adware debacle; at the same time, GitHub started making changes which made it more viable to use the platform to distribute binary releases. The deficiencies of GitHub are not critical enough for me to care, and if it ever gets that bad, pushing somewhere else and putting a few "WE HAVE MOVED" links isn't a big deal. And "the community" isn't moving to Codeberg because Codeberg can't support "the community" without a massive scale up.
jedisct1 6mo ago
Codeberg is great, but I really miss Octobox. I can't imagine using GitHub without Octobox; it's just impossible to keep track of all the notifications by email. Unfortunately, Octobox doesn't support GitHub, so I've no idea how to follow projects, even the ones I really want to contribute to.
fareesh 6mo ago
never had a problem with github, i must be using it during the 90% of the time that it works
erdaniels 6mo ago
I just migrated our entire company off of github to gitlab self-hosted. So far so good. It's entirely behind tailscale so we don't have any SSO tax from gitlab and all of our CI runners are on EKS + an on-prem cluster with GPUs. If anyone needs help or motivation accomplishing the same, just reach out!
- bachittle 6mo ago
  Did you also try Forgejo? If so, what are the differences between the two? I didn't even know GitLab had a self-hosted option. I assume it's probably better for Enterprise-grade projects, and dealing with CI/CD, actions, etc. But for smaller projects that just have issues and PRs and minor test suites, I assume Forgejo is the better lightweight option.
  - erdaniels 6mo ago
    Yeah I tried hosting forgejo and the first issue I found was that it was crashing some of the time with our large monorepo and getting actions/runners up and running was proving time consuming; I really did like how lightweight it was, monolith wise. gitlab has a lot more architecture behind it but the documentation is very good at describing how you should configure it for your needs. I think Forgejo would work fine for smaller projects and teams. We really wanted to stop having to worry about GitHub going and not being able to do CD as well as get away from a lot of the action zero-days happening. And yes, it's self-hosted and free! You can run a reference implementation pretty easily with non-production components (i.e. they won't backup or scale well).
- literallyroy 6mo ago
  Does self-hosted support SCIM or something else easy to connect for automatic user provisioning? Or do yal do account creations manually?
  - zufallsheld 6mo ago
    In corporate most people connect their gitlab to ldap or active directory and thus accounts get created automatically.
bachittle 6mo ago
I have enjoyed using Forgejo over GitHub for local work. The features that GitHub has that plain Git does not includes a nice web renderer of markdown and code, issues and pull requests with comments, and project kanban boards. It's nice to have an alternative for local usage if GitHub ever goes down or just for private projects. Especially nice with agentic workflows, because agents can port issues, PRs, etc. back and forth between GitHub and Forgejo.
askonomm 6mo ago
I'm self-hosting Forgejo on my own home server. It's super easy to do via Docker or as a single binary executable. I even have CI/CD runners on it, which was also very easy to set up. Definitely recommend for those who might not want to rely on someone else, be it Codeberg or not, but still get the same quality as Codeberg (as they literally run Forgejo themselves).
mtlynch 6mo ago
>The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos. This was my biggest blocker as well, as there weren't any managed CIs that supported Codeberg until recently. NixCI[0] recently added support for Codeberg, and I've had a great experience with it. The catch is that you have to write your CI in Nix, though with LLMs, this is actually pretty easy. Most of my CI jobs are just bash scripts with some Nix wiring on top.[1] It also means you can reproduce all your CI jobs locally without changing any code. [0] https://nix-ci.com https://nix-ci.com [1] https://codeberg.org/mtlynch/little-moments/src/commit/d9856f449a716876cb9bcf45c4ef5ec6139ed417/flake.nix https://codeberg.org/mtlynch/little-moments/src/commit/d9856... - for example
jtfrench 6mo ago
Haven’t heard of Codeberg. What are the top reasons to switch from GitHub?
kps 6mo ago
What I'd like to see is a lazy person's HOWTO for the last paragraph: > You could tell Codeberg to push new commits to GitHub, but this allows users to still file PRs and comment on issues and commits 2. Some folks have dealt with this by disabling issues on the GitHub repo, but that is a really destructive action as it will 404 all issues, and pull requests cannot be disabled. Some repos like libvirt/libvirt have written a GitHub Action that automatically closes all pull requests.
- captn3m0 6mo ago
  Disabling PRs is now possible on GitHub: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-02-13-new-repository-settings-for-configuring-pull-request-access/ https://github.blog/changelog/2026-02-13-new-repository-sett... You can limit them to contributors as well.
  - kps 6mo ago
    Thanks. Doesn't seem to be supported by `gh` yet.
hgo 6mo ago
Oh, I didn't know github had free macOS CI runners. Maybe that would solve my dreadful upcoming issue that I'd have to update my mac to a version with glass to be able to build for the app store.
sergiotapia 6mo ago
The problem is paas platforms and other platforms don't really support codeberg or any other alternatives. Can I link a codeberg repo to Railway for example?
ramon156 6mo ago
Instead of "moving", let's at least have some mirrors up. Mirror all your repos to CB, make a FOSS tool to do this automagically for you. Let users be able to just click a button and boom, mirror. The goal is to get at least a % available on CB, then we can think about where the community is
- Aperocky 6mo ago
  Why didn't codeberg make this FOSS tool though? Seems natural they should.
  - r14c 6mo ago
    They disabled the mirrors feature because they didn't want a bunch of accounts mirroring large repos and doing nothing else. Forgejo does support mirrors, just not codeberg.
maxdo 6mo ago
Everything runs on servers that we control. We will not sell your data. Hosted in Europe, we welcome the world. ``````` so it's you control, make money vs they control make money. what is the difference here , except some eu version of maga movement here?
- peter_griffin 6mo ago
  owned by a non profit instead of microsoft
- aerzen 6mo ago
  Forgejo is also OSS, so you can easily migrate git and issues and prs and everything to your own hosted instance, if codeberg proves untrustworthy. Which I can't on github.
- paulddraper 6mo ago
  No service provider lock-in. Codeberg is just a hosted instance of Forgejo (GPLv3). They even support a workflow for migrating to a different Forgejo instance [1]. [1] https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos/ https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos/
- moritzruth 6mo ago
  > we welcome the world > maga movement
panavinsingh 6mo ago
[flagged]
gaigalas 6mo ago
> The by far nastiest part is CI. But that's the most important part. A repository without CI is basically dead. The biggest challenge of this era is automated verification, and proper CI infrastructure is essential. GitHub feels like what Hudson/Jenkins was some decades ago. Horrible, but the only one that did what it did. I run probably hundreds of dollars of CI on GitHub per month. Except I don't pay a cent for it (all open source public repos). I can't just let that go, those workers do real work.
- bigstrat2003 6mo ago
  You do not in any way need CI to make software. It's a helpful tool, not a requirement.
  - gaigalas 6mo ago
    Don't put words on my mouth.
ovo101 6mo ago
[dead]
6272connect 6mo ago
[dead]
jbaber 6mo ago
Meet developers where they are: have multiple remotes at multiple forges and mailing lists. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.
holoduke 6mo ago
Seriously think of moving to my own private gitea. I mean in less than an hour I have it setup. Make some daily backups to a cheap bucket somewhere is enough. In addition I get unlimited git action time. That's currently my biggest cost in my private workflow.
devnotes77 6mo ago
[dead]
craxyfrog 6mo ago
[dead]
hum3hum3 6mo ago
I have done this with the help of Claude. codeberge first, using static host for my pages and a Hetzner woodpeckr for a tiny amount of testing. working well so far.
itskokeh 6mo ago
Cobeberg hasn't gotten to a level where it can be considered seriously as a GitHub replacement.
sheepscreek 6mo ago
I don’t know what everyone else thinks, but for me, GitHub is a shining star among most developer tools and services. Free hosting for code, sites, personal projects, no obligation to make your repositories public or buy a subscription. For most devs, they would never need to buy a subscription. Heck, I don’t need it, but I pay for it as a thank you for what I get (have gotten) out of it. I am honestly shocked that they managed to survive and thrive after getting bought by MS! So please pardon my ignorance when I say that I don’t understand why some FOSS projects want to move away.
- itskokeh 6mo ago
  This is a valid take. The sheer scale of GitHub and its economic backing by giants allows it to offer a lot, for FREE. Self hosted projects cannot compete with this. They either get huge venture fund or remain small. GitHub is not perfect, but nothing comes close
- phyzome 6mo ago
  Thrive? No. GH has been getting very noticeably worse. The uptime is terrible now and the UI is a lot flakier.
  - sheepscreek 6mo ago
    So their usage has shot up post AI agents/agentic coding. We are seeing the effects via their struggle to keep up with demand. That by itself does not make the service bad. Claude did not even make it to two nines for January (98.9% availability). Source: https://bsky.app/profile/teropa.bsky.social/post/3mi2dbt27m226 https://bsky.app/profile/teropa.bsky.social/post/3mi2dbt27m2...
    - phyzome 6mo ago
      I mean, I don't know anything about Claude. That sounds like it could be normal for a heavily vibe-coded project. But GH was pretty stable for a decade or so, through many changes. I don't think there's that much new activity. The UI bugginess is also new.
notepad0x90 6mo ago
My friend has a question, why? Is it a politics thing, or something Microsoft did recently?
martmulx 6mo ago
[flagged]
schnatterer 6mo ago
This repo also holds a lot of info about setting up two way mirrors between GitHub and Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/Recommendations/Mirror_to_Codeberg https://codeberg.org/Recommendations/Mirror_to_Codeberg Last commit is two years ago, but still a good overview.
jenadine 6mo ago
The main reason I use GitHub is because of the network effect. Most people have already a GitHub account and can easily open PR, issues, discussions. So I'll wait until some big projects do it. For example, the day the Rust project moves away from GitHub I'll seriously consider. (Because I use Rust)
sibtain1997 6mo ago
This is really helpful. I always assumed the migration itself would be the hardest part, but the CI point makes a lot of sense. How has reliability been so far compared to GitHub, especially on bigger repos?
tom-blk 6mo ago
Interesting insight, was going to look into migrating some stuff there anyway, but didn't get around to it yet. Thanks for the push!
account42 6mo ago
I refuse to use any platform that uses user-hostile "anti-bot" software.

638 points by jslakro 6mo ago

Having options is really important bcs relying heavily on one thing is not something that goes always well

> The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos Yup and this is where I pass on anything other than GitHub.

esafak 6mo ago
I get it for open source projects but at least use something nice like depot.dev for commercial ventures.
dangus 6mo ago
I was going to say that I’d be happy to run a local Mac mini to be a runner but I noticed that Forgejo runners are only built for Linux. It seems like to be a serious CI platform they really need to change Windows and Mac binaries for runners so you can build for those platforms. And this is more of a Forgejo issue than a Codeberg issue specifically. But also, I’d also throw out there the idea that CI doesn’t have to be at the same website as your source control. It’s nice that GitHub actions are conveniently part of the product but it’s not even really the top CI system out there.
- mfenniak 6mo ago
  Forgejo is committed to using exclusively Free Software for it's own project development. Windows and Mac versions of the Forgejo Runner are built in the project's CI system as a minimal check to ensure platform compatibility, but due to the project's commitment, the project doesn't do integration testing on these platform. And therefore doesn't distribute untested software. A contributor maintains a tested re-release of Forgejo Runner for Windows: https://github.com/Crown0815/Forgejo-runner-windows-builder https://github.com/Crown0815/Forgejo-runner-windows-builder But, pull it down and build it, and it will work.
thinkxl 6mo ago
I've had a good experience with Woodpecker CI. I've heard that installation and integration with ForgeJo isn't easy, but I deploy everything to my homelab using Dokku, where I push a Dockerfile, mount a volume (on setup), and it's good to go. I assume this isn't optimal for a business setup, but for personal projects, I don't miss GitHub Actions at all.
maccard 6mo ago
Agreed - this is also where Github is the most unreliable. our _number one_ reason for build failures is "GHA being down/degraded" in 2026.
- jamiemallers 6mo ago
  [dead]
conradev 6mo ago
GitHub is free, but the runners are slow and increasingly unreliable. I use Namespace (https://namespace.so https://namespace.so) and I hook it up both to my personal GitHub as well as my personal Forgejo. I’m in the process of moving from the former to the latter!
- ekropotin 6mo ago
  I didn’t really realize the degree of their slowness, until I migrated one of the projects on a self-hosted gitea and runners. This setup is just breezing! It’s an order of magnitude faster we’re talking about. Granted, self-hosting git is not feasible for everyone, but GitHub + self hosted runners seems like a very good option.
hrmtst93837 6mo ago
[flagged]
account42 6mo ago
E E <- you are here E

InitialPhase55 6mo ago

Might be more difficult for people with private repos, as I recall Codeberg doesn't like private repos on their platform.

systems 6mo ago
I just noticed this, they dont allow private repos (with few exceptions) I wonder why they dont just offer unlimited private repos for (reasonably) paid accounts , I think maybe a 40 dollar per year (or 4 dollar monthly), is low and encouraging , and should be welcomed by many , I hope they consider it
- wongarsu 6mo ago
  Codeberg is a German nonprofit. To keep their tax-advantaged status, anything they do has to follow the purpose established in their bylaws. That purpose is "to promote the creation, collection, distribution and preservation of Free Content (Open Content, Free Cultural Works) and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and their documentation in selfless work to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education. Furthermore, this also intends to raise awareness for the social and philosophical questions interconnected with this." I imagine they would argue that private repositories do not follow this purpose, as they are neither free content nor FOSS. I believe you could argue that charging a modest fee for private repositories to finance the hosting of FOSS repositories is in line with the purpose, but you get on thinner ice with that. It could quickly make them appear more like a company than like a nonprofit
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 6mo ago
If you have a server, some cheap VPS will suffice, you can host a private git repo there without installing anything. Run this on your server: git init --bare foo.git and then on your PC you can do this: git clone user@yourserver.com:~/foo.git It's probably a good idea to make a separate user account on the server for it, though.
- throwa356262 6mo ago

INTPenis 6mo ago

Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. That is what murders the impression of a product like codeberg. Sorry, just being frank. I want all competitors to large monopolies to succeed, but I also want to be able to do my job/passion.

embedding-shape 6mo ago
Maybe I'm too old school, but both GitHub and Codeberg for me are asyncronous "I want to send/share the code somehow", not "my active workspace I require to do work". But reading > the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. Makes it seem like GitHub/Codeberg has to be online for you to be able to code, is that really the case? If so, how does that happen, you only edit code directly in the GitHub web UI or how does one end up in that situation?
- freedomben 6mo ago
  For me it's a soft block rather than a hard block. I use multiple computers so when I switch to the other one I usually do a git pull, and after every commit I do a push. If that gets interrupted, then I have resort to things like rsyncing over from the other system, but more than once I've lost work that way. I'm strongly considering just standing up a VM and using "just git" and foregoing any UI, but I make use of other features like CI/CD and Releases for distribution, so the VM strategy is still just a bandaid. When the remote is unavailable, it can be very disruptive.
  - SoftTalker 6mo ago
    > just standing up a VM and using "just git" That's what I do. Control your entire world yourself.

mplanchard 6mo ago

I've been mostly off the GitHub train since the MS acquisition, and think any alternative is a good alternative. Codeberg is great. I've also been very happy with sourcehut for most of my personal projects for some time. The email patch submission workflow is a tad bit unfamiliar for most, but IMO in today's era raising that barrier to entry is mostly a good thing for OSS projects. I also strongly prefer a simple CI environment (where you just run commands), which encourages you to actually be able to run your CI commands locally.

rvz 6mo ago

This was kind of predictable [0] and even self-hosting your own solution was done way before GitHub existed and now has better uptime than them. Now they are turning GitHub into a canteen for AI agents and their AI chatbots (Copilot, Tay.ai and Zoe) to feed them on your code if you don't opt out. > The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos Hosting was never free and if you do not want Codeberg to go the way of GitHub, you need to pay for it. Otherwise expect GitHub downtime to hit every week or so. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803

woodruffw 6mo ago

I think evaluating alternatives to GitHub is going to become increasingly important over the coming years. At the same time, I think these kinds of migrations discount how much GitHub has changed the table stakes/raised the bar for what makes a valuable source forge: it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI or accept one that can't natively build for a common set of end-user architectures. This on its own makes me pretty bearish on community-driven attempts to oust GitHub, even if ideologically I'm aligned with them: the real cost (both financial and in terms of complexity) of user expectations around source forges in 2026 is immense.

wongarsu 6mo ago
CI needs good integration into the source forge. But I don't really perceive Github actions as a huge benefit over the times when everone just set up CircleCI or whatever. As long as it can turn PR checks red, yellow and green and has a link to the logs I'm happy The whole PR and code review experience is much more important to me. Github is striving to set a high bar, but is also hilariously bad in some ways. Similarly the whole issue system is passable on Github, but doesn't really reach the state of the art of issue systems from 20 years ago
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
jamiemallers 6mo ago
[dead]
prmoustache 6mo ago
> it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI Why? I know plenty of teams which are fine with repo and CI being separate tools as long as there is integration between the 2.
- CuriouslyC 6mo ago
  Actions are bad, but they're free (to start) and just good enough that they're useful to set up something quick and dirty, and tempt you to try and scale it for a little while.

999900000999 6mo ago

GitHub gives you a lot for "free". In exchange they'll have no problem harvesting your data, and it would really surprise me if they aren't training on private repos too. I guess you can opt out and if they're opt out doesn't work oh well. On the other hand Codeberg doesn't let you create private repositories at all. So Copilot could still legally scrape your open source Codeberg repos. I don't see much of a point for most people. https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ >If you need private repositories for commercial projects (e.g. because you represent a company or are a developer that needs a space to host private freelance projects for your clients), we would highly recommend that you take a look at Forgejo. Forgejo is the Git hosting software that Codeberg runs. It is free software and relatively easy to self-host. Codeberg does not offer private hosting services.

b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
>On the other hand Codeberg doesn't let you create private repositories at all. are you sure about that? I'm fairly certain my repos on codeberg are all private but I could be mistaken.
- mfenniak 6mo ago
  It is kinda incorrect and kinda correct. Codeberg allows you to create private repositories. However, their rules are clear that the intent of private repositories must be in support of Free software projects: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-private-repositories%3F https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-pri..., which for many people is effectively not allowing private repositories.
  - arcanemachiner 6mo ago
    My reading is: Don't attempt to store your media (photos, music, videos, etc.) collection there, and you won't have any issues.
    - 6mo ago

noirscape 6mo ago

I don't dislike Codeberg inherently, but it's not a "true" GitHub replacement. It can handle a good chunk of GitHub repositories (namely those for well established FOSS projects looking to have everything a proper capital P project has), but if you're just looking for a generic place to put your code projects that aren't necessarily intended for public release and support (ie. random automation scripts, scraps of concepts that never really got off the ground, things not super cleaned up), they're not really for that - private repositories are discouraged according to their FAQ and are very limited (up to 100mb). They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. At least Forgejo (software behind Codeberg) is FOSS, so you can do that and it should cover most of what you need (and while you're in the realm of having a server, a Pages-esque replacement is trivial since you're configuring a webserver anyway.) Maybe Gitlab.com, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with how Gitlab's "main" instance has changed over the years wrt features. Here's their FAQ on the matter, it's worth a read: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/

real_joschi 6mo ago
> They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/
- noirscape 6mo ago
  From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage), and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seems more like it's meant for projects and organizations rather than individual people. The way it's described here indicates that using them to host your own blog/portfolio/what have you is considered to be abusing their services.

mrbluecoat 6mo ago

Is there a "Moving open source search from GitHub to XYZ, for lazy people"? When I'm looking for solutions to problems that open source might be able to solve, I find the fracturing of code hosting platforms an annoyance.

fhennig 6mo ago
Can you elaborate what the problem is? IMO hosting and search are quite decoupled, why not just search for "open source solution to problem XYZ" in your favorite search engine?
- mrbluecoat 6mo ago
  I specifically like the filtering to say "permissive license in Go language"

throwa356262 6mo ago

Codeberg is not a 1-1 replacement for github/gitlab but for many people it is a better option. I really wish there was a way to support with them a smaller amount then €24. I dont use codeberg myself but I really want to support them.

arcanemachiner 6mo ago
I send them a couple bucks a month via Liberapay. I'm on mobile and short on time, but you can customize the donation amount easily.
KomoD 6mo ago
You can, €24 is just for the membership Wire transfer is €10 Stripe is €5 With PayPal you can send €0.01 if you want Or Liberapay, as little as €0.01 per week

ponkpanda 6mo ago

Repo hosting is the kind of thing that ought to be distributed/federated. The underlying protocol (git) already has the cryptographic primitives that decouples trust in the commit tree (GPG or SSH signing) with trust in the storage service (i.e. github/codeberg/whatever). All you need to house centrally is some SSH and/or gpg key server and some means of managing namespaces which would benefit from federation as well. You'd get the benefits of de-centralisation - no over-reliance on actors like MS or cloudflare. I suppose if enough people fan out to gitlab, bitbucket, self hosting, codeberg, you end up with something that organically approximates a formally decentralised git repo system.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
swiftcoder 6mo ago
> Repo hosting is the kind of thing that ought to be distributed/federated. Hence Tangled and ForgeFed (which I believe is integrating in Forejo)
- mikepurvis 6mo ago
  I hadn't heard of either of these, but I'm interested. I think at this point the bigger barrier to me with leaving GitHub (professionally, at least) is all the non-GitHub stuff that integrates nicely with it and badly or not at all with other solutions. And like, I don't blame tool providers for making a rational economic choice in that regard, but if leaving GitHub means leaving seamless Sentry, Depot, Linear, editor plugins, AI integrations, etc that makes it a tougher pill to swallow. I worked for years at a shop that had in-house GitLab and we felt this pain first hand all the time. GitLab tries to be a one-stop shop and own the whole project management and testing/deployment workflow by building everything in house, but there were always gaps and it was hard not to be jealous of places that just did everything on GitHub and could use whatever best in class saas stuff they wanted. Gitlab has been tracking a federation feature since at least 2018 [1], and I expect bitbucket, sourcehut, gitea, and others would move quickly on something like this as well, but there needs to be a protocol defined and some kind of plan for handling spam/abuse. [1]: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/work_items/16514 https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/work_items/16514

Jotalea 6mo ago

even better, selfhost your own gitea instance

vaylian 6mo ago
How do other people open pull/merge requests for your projects?
- KomoD 6mo ago
  They make an account or you give them one?
- swiftcoder 6mo ago
  Honest question: do you want them to? Most of us aren't running high-profile OSS projects, and drive-by PRs are a pretty widespread complaint about GitHub's model of opensource
- rmi_ 6mo ago
  Just push to that instance, or, as Linus intended, send patches via e-mail.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

dalvrosa 6mo ago

Codeberg vs selfhosted Gitlab. What do you think?

jayd16 6mo ago
For what its worth, it's pretty easy to maintain a low traffic Gitlab instance.
real_joschi 6mo ago
I think the question is rather gitlab.com vs. self-hosted GitLab and Codeberg vs. self-hosted Forgejo.
- dalvrosa 6mo ago
  Fair

I_am_tiberius 6mo ago

I wish they had a paid plan for private repositories that aren't FOSS.

stock_toaster 6mo ago
I recently ran across codefloe[1] recently in another thread[2], and have been considering it for private non-floss-related repos... haven't tried it out yet though, so mileage may vary. [1]: https://codefloe.com/ https://codefloe.com/ [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47487436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47487436
- fatterypt 6mo ago
  I've been using codefloe for everything personal, and I couldn't be happier. It's been stable, snappy, and offers me everything I need. I don't miss GitHub a single bit
  - stock_toaster 6mo ago
    Thanks for the positive anecdote. That gives me more motivation to finally try it out.

cdrnsf 6mo ago

I've been using a self-hosted forgejo (which Codeberg uses and maintains) instance for all of my non-work projects and it's been great. I don't miss GitHub at all. I also keep it accessible only from Tailscale so that AI crawlers and such can speedily make their way into the sun.

poorman 6mo ago
Same. I installed Forgejo two months ago when Github wouldn't let me create agent accounts. It's been awesome. Any time I want a new feature I open my agent on the server and tell it to add the feature to Forgejo. Took all of 15 minutes for it to add a working Show/Hide "Viewed" files on the PR reviews.
- huijzer 6mo ago
  You mean you upstream those changes or are you running your own fork?
midasz 6mo ago
Same - also installed a forgejo runner via docker so i've got CI. Forgejo has it's own artifactory/registry so the apps I make get a docker image and I just run that docker image. All on my own hardware.
huijzer 6mo ago
I have moved to self-host Forgejo a few years ago and I can also highly recommend. It's working great. I have posted a tutorial [1] (verified last month that it still works), and recently moved from Hetzner to 2 Raspberry Pi's for hosting the server and the runner [2]. It's great. Really rock solid. Has been more reliable and faster than GitHub. [1]: https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separate-runner https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separ... [2]: https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separate-runner https://huijzer.xyz/posts/55/installing-forgejo-with-a-separ...
eblume 6mo ago
Same! I've also recently exposed mine to the internet through a fly.io proxy, though. So far, no issues, but I'm keeping a close eye.

elzbardico 6mo ago

Really, they day I finally tire of github, I will just move to gitlab. git hosting is not something I want to wast my time yak shaving.

huijzer 6mo ago
I'm running Forgejo for years now and I spend almost no time on it. I just host it with my other services. Backups automatically with Syncthing and I manually check in on the server and run apt-get upgrade once every two weeks.

jjslocum3 6mo ago

I'm still more comfortable keeping my code in America.

mococa 6mo ago

> If you absolutely need macOS runners I’d recommend sticking with GitHub Actions on the GitHub repository... This is the only reason I haven’t migrated yet (I keep a mirror[1]). 1 - https://codeberg.org/willtobyte/carimbo https://codeberg.org/willtobyte/carimbo

codazoda 6mo ago

I love the simple design of the page. This is a random observations, but I noticed the author has an interesting "likes" button that is served from an API on https://dddddddddzzzz.org https://dddddddddzzzz.org, a curious and interesting looking domain. I'll have to go dig around his blog to see if he's written about this.

KomoD 6mo ago
> This is a random observations, but I noticed the author has an interesting "likes" button that is served from an API on https://dddddddddzzzz.org https://dddddddddzzzz.org, a curious and interesting looking domain. I'll have to go dig around his blog to see if he's written about this Here you go: https://openheart.fyi https://openheart.fyi

Arcuru 6mo ago

Does any service offer hosted Forgejo Actions Runners? Or Forgejo compatible CI? I want to pay for CI on my Codeberg projects, but I've been struggling to find something where I can just pay by the minute. I have projects that benefit from large CI runners but my usage is low enough that it makes no sense to host my own.

asim 6mo ago

Why? I want to understand why? Out of principle? I think some services just end up becoming foundational and we need to move on to other things for other things e.g if we're going to replace GitHub it's because we're creating new habits. Not because we're replacing like for like. That never works. What is a new code hosting platform offering. You know what, pair it with some app dev and great, now you've got something. But just hosting elsewhere it's got to be a major step change the way GitHub was from sourceforge and self hosting. Inherently the social aspects drove that and the power of git. Personally I think you have to intertwine the code hosting with app development using agents like a Google doc. Commits everytime there is a change. Every prompt creates a commit. I don't know. We don't need to reinvent the wheel for nothing.

voxic11 6mo ago
> What is a new code hosting platform offering. For me its providing uptime. Github is barely reaching one nine of availability these days.
0x3f 6mo ago
Why does this post exist? I assume because of the Copilot story that's also trending and the subsequent loss of trust. Not sure if Github has serious alternatives, but the desire to move is not for 'nothing'.
finnjohnsen2 6mo ago
Geopolitics is a reason. Many individuals and companies are scrambling for safe alternatives to US tech. I live in Norway and there is a lot of this going on.

lijunle 6mo ago

The concerning part is commercial. That is why Cloudflare Pages/workers is a better option than GitHub pages or Vercel Pages.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

pfortuny 6mo ago

I am really really amazed at how many people discount this alternative because it does not work but do not realize that they are being slaves to Microsoft by using Github. Honestly, I do not get it.

johnisgood 6mo ago
Apparently they have issues with self-hosting and basic git usage so I am not surprised, but yes, so many open source advocates, yet they literally depend on Microsoft, a bit too much.
- goku12 6mo ago
  > but yes, so many open source advocates, yet they literally depend on Microsoft, a bit too much. I have abandoned github and even gitlab for all intents and purposes. But there's another side to consider in this. It's always risky for the FOSS community to depend on a service that doesn't offer interoperability and freedom of migration. Ironically, Github is such a service built on a tool (git) that's built for maximum interop and migration. But the popularity of Github among the developer community isn't an accident. They worked really hard during their early stages as a startup, to gain the trust of community. Nobody foresaw Microsoft buying them at that stage (though you should really just assume that it would happen eventually). The reluctance of a lot of them to abandon the platform can be attributed to lack of principles - IF it was an isolated incident. But we see the same story repeating with several development platforms. NPM is an example. PyPI and crates.io are still independent, as far as I know. But they aren't free of corporate influences either. No matter how much we try to avoid them, the companies just buy their way into these platforms when they become popular enough. I'm not happy with this. But I don't know a solution either.
d675 6mo ago
What’s the hate on Microsoft?
- pfortuny 6mo ago
  It's not hate, it is that everybody complains about their services and their predatory behavior but somehow Github gets a free pass. As if it were going to be free forever, and well maintained...

packetlost 6mo ago

tangled.org is another interesting take that's open source and built on ATProto (which I have mixed feelings about). Also radicle.xyz

sylware 6mo ago

codeberg.org still requires "javascript" aka one of the massive whatng cartel c++ written web engines. Do prefer sourcehut or others which are not web apps, in other words are web sites (classic web, or noscript/basic html for critical core functions at least, like issue tracking). microsoft carefully broke classic web support overtime, THX AGAIN MICROSOFT, WE LOVE YOU!

gitprolinux 6mo ago

I just have to say that I wrote my on hosting git service and eat my own stuff at gitbusiness.com

ronsor 6mo ago

The truth is that I publish OSS projects on GitHub because that's where the community is, and the issues/pull requests/discussions are a bonus. If I just want to host my code, I can self host or use an SSH/SFTP server as a git remote, and that's usually what I do.

embedding-shape 6mo ago
> I publish OSS projects on GitHub because that's where the community is And so we go, forever in circles, until enough of us move to other platforms regardless of where the existing community is. Just like how GitHub found its community in the early days, when most people (afaik) was using SourceForge, if anything. "The community" will always remain on GitHub, if everyone just upload code to where "the community" already is. If enough of us stop using GitHub by default, and instead use something else, eventually "the community" will be there too, but it is somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem, I admit. I myself workaround this by dropping the whole idea that I'm writing software for others, and I only write it for myself, so if people want it, go to my personal Gitea instance and grab it if you want, I couldn't care less about stars and "publicity" or whatever people nowadays care about. But I'm also lucky enough to already have a network, it might require other's to build their network on GitHub first, then also be able to do something similar, and it'll all work out in the end.
- ronsor 6mo ago
  > "The community" will always remain on GitHub, if everyone just upload code to where "the community" already is. If enough of us stop using GitHub by default, and instead use something else, eventually "the community" will be there too, but it is somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem, I admit. SourceForge was abandoned due to UX issues and the adware debacle; at the same time, GitHub started making changes which made it more viable to use the platform to distribute binary releases. The deficiencies of GitHub are not critical enough for me to care, and if it ever gets that bad, pushing somewhere else and putting a few "WE HAVE MOVED" links isn't a big deal. And "the community" isn't moving to Codeberg because Codeberg can't support "the community" without a massive scale up.

jedisct1 6mo ago

Codeberg is great, but I really miss Octobox. I can't imagine using GitHub without Octobox; it's just impossible to keep track of all the notifications by email. Unfortunately, Octobox doesn't support GitHub, so I've no idea how to follow projects, even the ones I really want to contribute to.

fareesh 6mo ago

never had a problem with github, i must be using it during the 90% of the time that it works

erdaniels 6mo ago

I just migrated our entire company off of github to gitlab self-hosted. So far so good. It's entirely behind tailscale so we don't have any SSO tax from gitlab and all of our CI runners are on EKS + an on-prem cluster with GPUs. If anyone needs help or motivation accomplishing the same, just reach out!

bachittle 6mo ago
Did you also try Forgejo? If so, what are the differences between the two? I didn't even know GitLab had a self-hosted option. I assume it's probably better for Enterprise-grade projects, and dealing with CI/CD, actions, etc. But for smaller projects that just have issues and PRs and minor test suites, I assume Forgejo is the better lightweight option.
- erdaniels 6mo ago
  Yeah I tried hosting forgejo and the first issue I found was that it was crashing some of the time with our large monorepo and getting actions/runners up and running was proving time consuming; I really did like how lightweight it was, monolith wise. gitlab has a lot more architecture behind it but the documentation is very good at describing how you should configure it for your needs. I think Forgejo would work fine for smaller projects and teams. We really wanted to stop having to worry about GitHub going and not being able to do CD as well as get away from a lot of the action zero-days happening. And yes, it's self-hosted and free! You can run a reference implementation pretty easily with non-production components (i.e. they won't backup or scale well).
literallyroy 6mo ago
Does self-hosted support SCIM or something else easy to connect for automatic user provisioning? Or do yal do account creations manually?
- zufallsheld 6mo ago
  In corporate most people connect their gitlab to ldap or active directory and thus accounts get created automatically.

bachittle 6mo ago

I have enjoyed using Forgejo over GitHub for local work. The features that GitHub has that plain Git does not includes a nice web renderer of markdown and code, issues and pull requests with comments, and project kanban boards. It's nice to have an alternative for local usage if GitHub ever goes down or just for private projects. Especially nice with agentic workflows, because agents can port issues, PRs, etc. back and forth between GitHub and Forgejo.

askonomm 6mo ago

I'm self-hosting Forgejo on my own home server. It's super easy to do via Docker or as a single binary executable. I even have CI/CD runners on it, which was also very easy to set up. Definitely recommend for those who might not want to rely on someone else, be it Codeberg or not, but still get the same quality as Codeberg (as they literally run Forgejo themselves).

mtlynch 6mo ago

>The by far nastiest part is CI. GitHub has done an excellent job luring people in with free macOS runners and infinite capacity for public repos. This was my biggest blocker as well, as there weren't any managed CIs that supported Codeberg until recently. NixCI[0] recently added support for Codeberg, and I've had a great experience with it. The catch is that you have to write your CI in Nix, though with LLMs, this is actually pretty easy. Most of my CI jobs are just bash scripts with some Nix wiring on top.[1] It also means you can reproduce all your CI jobs locally without changing any code. [0] https://nix-ci.com https://nix-ci.com [1] https://codeberg.org/mtlynch/little-moments/src/commit/d9856f449a716876cb9bcf45c4ef5ec6139ed417/flake.nix https://codeberg.org/mtlynch/little-moments/src/commit/d9856... - for example

jtfrench 6mo ago

Haven’t heard of Codeberg. What are the top reasons to switch from GitHub?

kps 6mo ago

What I'd like to see is a lazy person's HOWTO for the last paragraph: > You could tell Codeberg to push new commits to GitHub, but this allows users to still file PRs and comment on issues and commits 2. Some folks have dealt with this by disabling issues on the GitHub repo, but that is a really destructive action as it will 404 all issues, and pull requests cannot be disabled. Some repos like libvirt/libvirt have written a GitHub Action that automatically closes all pull requests.

captn3m0 6mo ago
Disabling PRs is now possible on GitHub: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-02-13-new-repository-settings-for-configuring-pull-request-access/ https://github.blog/changelog/2026-02-13-new-repository-sett... You can limit them to contributors as well.
- kps 6mo ago
  Thanks. Doesn't seem to be supported by `gh` yet.

hgo 6mo ago

Oh, I didn't know github had free macOS CI runners. Maybe that would solve my dreadful upcoming issue that I'd have to update my mac to a version with glass to be able to build for the app store.

sergiotapia 6mo ago

The problem is paas platforms and other platforms don't really support codeberg or any other alternatives. Can I link a codeberg repo to Railway for example?

ramon156 6mo ago

Instead of "moving", let's at least have some mirrors up. Mirror all your repos to CB, make a FOSS tool to do this automagically for you. Let users be able to just click a button and boom, mirror. The goal is to get at least a % available on CB, then we can think about where the community is

Aperocky 6mo ago
Why didn't codeberg make this FOSS tool though? Seems natural they should.
- r14c 6mo ago
  They disabled the mirrors feature because they didn't want a bunch of accounts mirroring large repos and doing nothing else. Forgejo does support mirrors, just not codeberg.

maxdo 6mo ago

Everything runs on servers that we control. We will not sell your data. Hosted in Europe, we welcome the world. ``````` so it's you control, make money vs they control make money. what is the difference here , except some eu version of maga movement here?

peter_griffin 6mo ago
owned by a non profit instead of microsoft
aerzen 6mo ago
Forgejo is also OSS, so you can easily migrate git and issues and prs and everything to your own hosted instance, if codeberg proves untrustworthy. Which I can't on github.
paulddraper 6mo ago
No service provider lock-in. Codeberg is just a hosted instance of Forgejo (GPLv3). They even support a workflow for migrating to a different Forgejo instance [1]. [1] https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos/ https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos/
moritzruth 6mo ago
> we welcome the world > maga movement

panavinsingh 6mo ago

[flagged]

gaigalas 6mo ago

> The by far nastiest part is CI. But that's the most important part. A repository without CI is basically dead. The biggest challenge of this era is automated verification, and proper CI infrastructure is essential. GitHub feels like what Hudson/Jenkins was some decades ago. Horrible, but the only one that did what it did. I run probably hundreds of dollars of CI on GitHub per month. Except I don't pay a cent for it (all open source public repos). I can't just let that go, those workers do real work.

bigstrat2003 6mo ago
You do not in any way need CI to make software. It's a helpful tool, not a requirement.
- gaigalas 6mo ago
  Don't put words on my mouth.

ovo101 6mo ago

[dead]

6272connect 6mo ago

[dead]

jbaber 6mo ago

Meet developers where they are: have multiple remotes at multiple forges and mailing lists. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

holoduke 6mo ago

Seriously think of moving to my own private gitea. I mean in less than an hour I have it setup. Make some daily backups to a cheap bucket somewhere is enough. In addition I get unlimited git action time. That's currently my biggest cost in my private workflow.

devnotes77 6mo ago

[dead]

craxyfrog 6mo ago

[dead]

hum3hum3 6mo ago

I have done this with the help of Claude. codeberge first, using static host for my pages and a Hetzner woodpeckr for a tiny amount of testing. working well so far.

itskokeh 6mo ago

Cobeberg hasn't gotten to a level where it can be considered seriously as a GitHub replacement.

sheepscreek 6mo ago

I don’t know what everyone else thinks, but for me, GitHub is a shining star among most developer tools and services. Free hosting for code, sites, personal projects, no obligation to make your repositories public or buy a subscription. For most devs, they would never need to buy a subscription. Heck, I don’t need it, but I pay for it as a thank you for what I get (have gotten) out of it. I am honestly shocked that they managed to survive and thrive after getting bought by MS! So please pardon my ignorance when I say that I don’t understand why some FOSS projects want to move away.

itskokeh 6mo ago
This is a valid take. The sheer scale of GitHub and its economic backing by giants allows it to offer a lot, for FREE. Self hosted projects cannot compete with this. They either get huge venture fund or remain small. GitHub is not perfect, but nothing comes close
phyzome 6mo ago
Thrive? No. GH has been getting very noticeably worse. The uptime is terrible now and the UI is a lot flakier.
- sheepscreek 6mo ago
  So their usage has shot up post AI agents/agentic coding. We are seeing the effects via their struggle to keep up with demand. That by itself does not make the service bad. Claude did not even make it to two nines for January (98.9% availability). Source: https://bsky.app/profile/teropa.bsky.social/post/3mi2dbt27m226 https://bsky.app/profile/teropa.bsky.social/post/3mi2dbt27m2...
  - phyzome 6mo ago
    I mean, I don't know anything about Claude. That sounds like it could be normal for a heavily vibe-coded project. But GH was pretty stable for a decade or so, through many changes. I don't think there's that much new activity. The UI bugginess is also new.

notepad0x90 6mo ago

My friend has a question, why? Is it a politics thing, or something Microsoft did recently?

martmulx 6mo ago

[flagged]

schnatterer 6mo ago

This repo also holds a lot of info about setting up two way mirrors between GitHub and Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/Recommendations/Mirror_to_Codeberg https://codeberg.org/Recommendations/Mirror_to_Codeberg Last commit is two years ago, but still a good overview.

jenadine 6mo ago

The main reason I use GitHub is because of the network effect. Most people have already a GitHub account and can easily open PR, issues, discussions. So I'll wait until some big projects do it. For example, the day the Rust project moves away from GitHub I'll seriously consider. (Because I use Rust)

sibtain1997 6mo ago

This is really helpful. I always assumed the migration itself would be the hardest part, but the CI point makes a lot of sense. How has reliability been so far compared to GitHub, especially on bigger repos?

tom-blk 6mo ago

Interesting insight, was going to look into migrating some stuff there anyway, but didn't get around to it yet. Thanks for the push!

account42 6mo ago

I refuse to use any platform that uses user-hostile "anti-bot" software.