Since yesterday a lot of users in Europe found their workflows failing due to Github seemingly randomly throwing HTTP/401 on git clone/git pull when interacting with public repos without authentication.
It was now confirmed by staff member that this indeed is intentional and no further steps are planned at this point.
Uh okay.
I wonder why people still keep up with this bullshit and not switch to some better public Git hosting provider.
Can you help me find a solution that:
Number 4 rules out Codeberg. The only other one that really supports that level is Azure DevOps, and well….
Could you suggest an alternative?
I know Codeberg exists, but they had reliability problems recently IIRC?
sr.ht and Gitlab are paid products.
Technically one can self-host a forge, but my attempts at setting up CI were unsuccessful (IMO that’s way more complicated that setting up the forge itself).
Codeberg’s couldn’t be much worse than github’s reliability since 2019
Codeberg only targets a subset of projects.
For example, I no longer want most of my self-written code to be publicly available, but Codeberg only supports public repos.Codeberg allows private repositories: https://docs.codeberg.org/collaborating/repo-permissions/
https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/first-repository/
Oh, I had no idea! Thanks, that’s great to know!
The problem with Codeberg now is that there is a spectrum of AI usage between manually coding and AI slop that Codeberg chooses to ignore with their new policy.
I get it that’s their platform and their choice, and at some point I even looked for ways to support them financially if that meant I could migrate all my repos from GitHub - I wouldn’t mind paying for my use, “vibe coded” or not - but an intransigent LLM ban creates uncertainty for many of my active projects, and I can’t consider them a viable alternative to GitHub anymore.
So sure, I’ll take 3h of GH actions downtime a month over a platform ban. I’m sure I’m not alone there.
So, you should be fine with the measures against scraping, then?
That doesn’t affect me, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too. I’d rather have open source content actually open and easy to access, but GitHub has an availability issue and they’re trying to address it, so I don’t see this as a hostile move.
I’m sure if codeberg was nearly as popular as github, they’d be forced to restrict some clones too. Their current load is unprecedented, even for their standards.
Like GitHub, yes. But if you’re not going to selfhost Forgejo they’re the best option.
Yes, they had reliability problems because so many fucking people are suddenly switching to them because they’re so much better overall and not evil. Those are the kind of reliability problems that it is genuinely nice to see someone having. Having a little bit of a bumpy road when scaling due to significant rapid adoption is normal. So what?
Imagine not wanting to use Linux because it recently had a bunch of security flaws. And it did. But again, so what? Does that mean Linux has always been insecure? Well for those things it was. But is it still insecure? Maybe, who knows, nothing is perfect. Are you going to refuse to use it because you’re not sure? Why? Past performance is not an indicator of future success.
If some minor reliability issues are your foremost concern to the point that the other things codeberg provides for free are not valuable to you because of it, I question the depth of your priorities.
That said, it is much healthier and better for people to self-host or use smaller less centralized providers if possible. I do not wish Codeberg to become a victim of their own success, and a healthy ecosystem is a diverse one. But it is not for everyone, and if all you need is a minimal fuss alternative to Github, Codeberg is right there.