• zaphod@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The idea of “self-hosting” git is so incredibly weird to me. Somehow GitHub managed to convince everyone that Git requires some kind of backend service. Meanwhile, I just push private code to bare repositories on my NAS via SSH.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      They didn’t convince anyone of anything, they just have a great free-tier service, so people prefer using it than self-hosting something. You can also self-hosted Github if you want the features they offer, besides Git.

      • zaphod@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        This post is about “self-hosting” a service, not using GitHub. That’s what I’m responding to.

        I’m not saying GitHub isn’t valuable. I use it myself. And in any situation involving multiple collaborators I’d probably recommend that kind of tool–whether GitHub or some self-hosted option–for ease of user administration, familiar PR workflows, issue tracking, etc.

        But if you’re a solo developer storing your code locally with no intention to share or collaborate, and you don’t want to use GitHub (as, again, is the case with this post) a self-hosted service adds a ton of complexity for only incremental value.

        I suspect a ton of folks simply don’t realize that you don’t need anything more than ssh and git to push/pull remote git repositories because they largely cargo cult their way through source control.