[HN Gopher] GitHub to Codeberg: my experience
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub to Codeberg: my experience
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 93 points
Date : 2025-11-30 16:12 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (eldred.fr)
(TXT) w3m dump (eldred.fr)
| darkamaul wrote:
| I've noticed that several projects on the front page today (and
| over the past few days) are migrating away from GitHub.
|
| Is there any recent event or broader trend that explains this
| shift?
| quamserena wrote:
| Zig's announcement[0] might provide some insight
|
| [0] https://ziglang.org/news/migrating-from-github-to-codeberg/
| NewJazz wrote:
| Ongoing availability issues, Microsoft's shoehorning of AI,
| GitHub's focus on migrating to Azure infrastructure rather than
| adding features and fixing shortcomings. If I had to guess.
| ainiriand wrote:
| ... Training their own models out of your code...
| bloppe wrote:
| If you're publishing your code anywhere, it's getting
| trained on. MS does not restrict themselves to _only_
| training on GH-hosted code.
| ISSOtm wrote:
| The point still stands for private repos, and also not
| making the job easy for them.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > If you're publishing your code anywhere, it's getting
| trained on
|
| citation needed. first they need to know my code
| exists... spend time and traffic crawling it because it's
| sure as hell not going to be hosted on azure... probably
| get detected and banned.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Yet, not restricting themselves to train on permissively
| licensed code only.
|
| The two ends of the spectrum, _both_ source available
| _and_ copyleft licensed code shouldn 't be used for
| training, but who's listening.
| Sytten wrote:
| Not naming names but heard from contacts that it is currently a
| sh*t-show of politics internally right now at GitHub and no
| progress is being made/large parts of the platform are
| abandoned unless P0.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The new focus of GitHub is to harvest data for AI.
|
| Everything else not important to them.
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm personally very tired of shoving AI everywhere otherwise
| GitHub is okay-ish albeit it seems it performed much better
| when it was a rails website rather than a react "app".
| michael_michael wrote:
| Are there any alternatives to Github that offer similar bang for
| the buck? Particularly for very small teams or solo devs that
| need private repos? The author here specifically mentions
| Codeberg, which seems like it's just for FOSS projects.
| docsaintly wrote:
| GitLab. There's also the option of self hosting it on a cheap
| server if you don't like cloud services.
| NewJazz wrote:
| You can self host the software underlying Codeberg, which is
| Forgejo. Then there is also GitLab which has a lot more
| features but is arguably more intensive to maintain. And then
| there is the long tail, such as the projects Forgejo was forged
| from (Gitea and Gogs) and various other FOSS forges e.g. Phorge
| which was forked from the now discontinued Phabricator.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| There's nothing about Codeberg that's FOSS only afaict.
| MYEUHD wrote:
| Codeberg requires that the repos you host are FOSS
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1219 Not true
| anymore.
| bradly wrote:
| From the current Terms of Service:
| Private repositories are only allowed for things required
| for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal
| discussions or hiding projects from the public until
| they're ready for usage and/or contribution.
| They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff
| like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but
| explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
|
| So the ToS says only private repos that support FLOSS,
| but then backdoors into "small & personal stuff" which is
| pretty loose and up to Codeberg's discretion so probably
| not the best place for your private side project repos.
| ackyshake wrote:
| I like sourcehut. It's the only forge out there that isn't set
| out to copy the Github UI like everyone else. And its UI itself
| feels instantaneous, as if it was running locally.
| ISSOtm wrote:
| I also like it, particularly for its outstanding CI, but I
| don't like the patch/email-centric approach. (Gave it a try,
| didn't have a good time.)
| wyldfire wrote:
| Sourcehut [1] is another interesting one.
|
| [1] https://sourcehut.org/alpha-details/
| bloppe wrote:
| If you want bang for your buck, and you use free GitHub
| Actions, then no.
| cy6erlion wrote:
| If you want a decentralized approach, you can selfhost cgit
| (https://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/) and receive patches via email.
| People interested can subscribe via RSS. If you simply want a
| way to browse your code on a static website checkout stagit
| (https://codemadness.org/stagit.html) which is similar to cgit
| but very light weight (it simply generates HTML of your git
| repository).
|
| Edit: There is also Fossil (https://fossil-
| scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki) by the SQLite
| developers. It is an SCM that is not based on git.
| ISSOtm wrote:
| Note that private repos are supported on Codeberg. (I would
| link to one of mine, but you'd just see a 404 :P)
| IshKebab wrote:
| Does Codeberg provide free CI runners? I'd estimate Microsoft
| spends over $100m/year on free Github CI. Likely their biggest
| cost. It doesn't seem like a reasonable thing Codeberg to fund
| for free.
| duttish wrote:
| For me this is the GitHub moat.
| NewJazz wrote:
| It isn't really a moat so much as a loss leader. Travis CI
| was free back in the day IIRC.
| bloppe wrote:
| Well if/when GH eliminates the free tier, I'll probably
| churn. I agree that's the main thing keeping me there.
| WCSTombs wrote:
| So it's a moat that trickles out to the sea and has to be
| kept filled very expensively.
|
| (I'm just keeping the metaphor alive because for me it is
| the primary blocker, whatever we call it.)
| jsheard wrote:
| They do, but their capacity is limited so you have to ask them
| for access and make a reasonable case.
|
| https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/
| ISSOtm wrote:
| Actually, that's only for the Woodpecker instance. Forgejo
| Actions can be used without asking for permission, and three
| tiers of (Linux-only, adm64-only) free runners are provided.
| WCSTombs wrote:
| Ok, that's very interesting. Last I checked only self-
| hosted runners were documented, but I definitely want to
| look into this.
| schubidubiduba wrote:
| Been a while since I applied, but when I did the "reasonable
| case" was mostly just your repo being FOSS and having a
| license file (+ a very vague description of what you plan to
| do and how much resources you'll use)
| oever wrote:
| You can use your own Woodpecker instance with Codeberg. I do
| this at work and privately and it works great and is much
| faster than the free CI that Codeberg can afford.
| Emen15 wrote:
| What really stands out to me in this migration story isn't the
| technical side at all, but the reminder that "feature parity"
| isn't the real hurdle here. Codeberg is already good enough for
| most day to day workflows; what it doesn't have is the
| gravitational pull GitHub built through network effects,
| integrations, and plain old inertia.
| kaferoni wrote:
| This is partially being addressed by projects like
| https://tangled.org. It's built on the same protocol as
| bluesky, meaning your identity is preserved across different
| platforms so that _where_ your git is hosted is unrelated to
| how you discover and connect with others.
| bayindirh wrote:
| FWIW, Forgejo (Codeberg) is also building federation
| capability [0].
|
| [0]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-
| contrib/federation/src/branch/m...
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| And just sheer amount of documentation and examples out there.
| Everyone uses it, therefore everyone writes about it, the new
| hire probably knows it, and if they don't they can find it
| easily.
|
| Then again maybe for stuff like actions and in general CI/CD
| it's not all that bad, you don't need whole team to know
| exactly how to write it, you just need to have _a_ person
| knowing it. and it 's generally not all that hard to learn.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| More and more people seem to be migrating away from Github. Now
| if only there were some Mercurial solutions among the
| alternatives. . .
| ISSOtm wrote:
| SourceHut has Mercurial hosting: https://hg.sr.ht
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-30 23:00 UTC)