With SourceHut banning projects that use LLMs[1], I’m looking to migrate this weekend.
While I can host Forgejo just fine[2], doing so means no one will be able to contribute to the projects, since federation isn’t a thing yet. Heck, getting contributions on SourceHut was hard enough, and it doesn’t even require people to register an account.
I might need to bite the bullet and go with GitHub. Regardless of what I think about the company and Microsoft, it’s where the people are.
What frontier model did GitHub train? All of the frontier labs scraped GitHub like they scraped everything else. While GitHub has certainly tried to profit from AI, directing ire at GitHub for frontier labs training on public code seems misplaced.
GitHub is going the wrong way, but there really is nothing workable for open-source projects except GitHub. I don’t want to register on all these random GitHub killers just to open an issue or PR in a random project I’ve interacted with.
For personal or team setups, any third-party service will work well.
I agree with the sentiment of the post, and Github deserves every bit of it. Tried codeberg (which uses forgejo) and I am very happy with it personally.
IME switching git providers is very hard, especially getting off of github. Most companies have insane numbers of integrations, automations, etc on top of GH. So yeah, its on us, but its also pretty simple algebra: does GH's downtime affect us more than the cost of switching? Most companies the answer is no.
When people ask why people aren't switching to Gitlab, ADO, Bitbucket, etc, I believe this is the reason.
This year, the migration projects I have worked on were some of the most fun. Migrations have changed from the death-by-1000-cuts that they were, to the which-AI-method-to-best-ensure-100%-fidelity. So, I don't believe the "very hard" part. Obviously it would involved recreating or reshaping many features that very involved in an integration to have a disruption-free move, but I think the complexity is manageable for most companies if they put in some effort.
This fun was not revenue-generating, I suspect, so it's already a loss. Also it's a long-tail change, which will likely create unexpected situations here and there, and de-value experience and knowledge already available. Cumulatively it can be much more expensive than staying, unless GH will continue to falter, of course.
I can't imagine anybody switching to ADO from GitHub. Microsoft has made clear that ADO is on life support, and are slowly stripping features out like public repos.
I look forward to when GitHub Actions has feature parity with Azure Pipelines.
90% uptime is abysmal. That degree of poor performance can easily cost astounding amounts of money and/or cause secondary incidents. It's just harder to quantify than the cost of switching.
I would not call it irresponsible. If you have a big, long running project you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow, but switching vendors can require redoing work that was built over years.
>develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow,
Beware the trap of making the pipeline so complicated it's like code except you can't debug it like regular code, and takes an hour between attempts to see if it worked.
> you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing
Opinion: Complex build processes are great. Complex _pipelines_ are a trap. I'm in a position to see the output of a lot of teams at a very large company. The teams that have complex build processes _that they can run locally_, and then have some trivial CI yaml to run the build, are doing great.
The teams that designed their build around CI are brittle and eventually end up in a state where they can _only_ do some parts of their build on CI.
IME it's worth it to set very hard boundaries shaped like: (1) Everything needs to be able to be run locally (usually in a devcontainer), (2) CI config shall be stupid simple. If you have more than like two lines in a script section, it goes into a Tools/Build script file that must work locally and is just called in a one-line CI script.
#1 guarantees you can operate without CI, and #2 guarantees you can move CI providers trivially.
If only we had a way to run code in a pre-defined isolated environment that can hide most of the differences of the actual hardware...
Oh, we do have Docker/Podman?
Then why not use _them_ to define your build pipelines? Bonus points: you can run them locally without tearing out your hair. And you can use normal scripting languages and task runners (taskfiles, good old makefiles, Ninja, etc.) for sequencing.
I really do wonder if the disruptions caused by the outages are starting to match the disruptions caused by a migration (which at least has a foreseeable end to it, theoretically).
Like even with the "will somebody please think of the operational costs" aspect, I really do wonder if the good old lock-in extortion math actually still holds in GH's favor.
GitHub ripped out the logo that said "meritocracy" on it because the new CEO and its internal self-described feminist coder groups found it "problematic." The CEO even went on Twitter with a smug "Words matter." tweet. Coincidentally, it wasn't long after when their quality really started to nosedive.
GitLab is also getting worse and worse. They're going full-in on AI and each new release is more cluttered with useless features and requires more and more resources to run smoothly. After six years self-hosting a GitLab instance for a few hundred users (among which a few dozens are quite active), I abandoned this summer and I'm currently migrating the instance to Forgejo.
It's a shame because I like GitLabs UX and runners much more than other forges. I've been considering forking gitlab and removing complexity. GitLab uses multiple GB of memory idle with no users. It's sad.
I agree. GitLab UI was great and the simplicity of its CI/CD is unequaled on other forges. It's sad that Forgejo went with the actions model from GitHub which introduce a lot of useless complexity. But it seems that Woodpecker CI [1] could be a good candidate to replace GitLab CI, as it uses very similar concepts and workflow description files.
I know, GitLab. Gitea. Bitbucket. They have some features, but it’s like suggesting I drive a Nissan Sentra because my BMW breaks down once in a while.
With SourceHut banning projects that use LLMs[1], I’m looking to migrate this weekend.
While I can host Forgejo just fine[2], doing so means no one will be able to contribute to the projects, since federation isn’t a thing yet. Heck, getting contributions on SourceHut was hard enough, and it doesn’t even require people to register an account.
I might need to bite the bullet and go with GitHub. Regardless of what I think about the company and Microsoft, it’s where the people are.
[1]: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/
[2]: And already do locally, as a mirror to SourceHut.
What frontier model did GitHub train? All of the frontier labs scraped GitHub like they scraped everything else. While GitHub has certainly tried to profit from AI, directing ire at GitHub for frontier labs training on public code seems misplaced.
Microsoft owns GitHub.
GitHub is going the wrong way, but there really is nothing workable for open-source projects except GitHub. I don’t want to register on all these random GitHub killers just to open an issue or PR in a random project I’ve interacted with.
For personal or team setups, any third-party service will work well.
> I don’t want to register on all these random GitHub killers
You don't have to; all the GitHub killers support GitHub sign on
I agree with the sentiment of the post, and Github deserves every bit of it. Tried codeberg (which uses forgejo) and I am very happy with it personally.
IME switching git providers is very hard, especially getting off of github. Most companies have insane numbers of integrations, automations, etc on top of GH. So yeah, its on us, but its also pretty simple algebra: does GH's downtime affect us more than the cost of switching? Most companies the answer is no.
When people ask why people aren't switching to Gitlab, ADO, Bitbucket, etc, I believe this is the reason.
This year, the migration projects I have worked on were some of the most fun. Migrations have changed from the death-by-1000-cuts that they were, to the which-AI-method-to-best-ensure-100%-fidelity. So, I don't believe the "very hard" part. Obviously it would involved recreating or reshaping many features that very involved in an integration to have a disruption-free move, but I think the complexity is manageable for most companies if they put in some effort.
This fun was not revenue-generating, I suspect, so it's already a loss. Also it's a long-tail change, which will likely create unexpected situations here and there, and de-value experience and knowledge already available. Cumulatively it can be much more expensive than staying, unless GH will continue to falter, of course.
I can't imagine anybody switching to ADO from GitHub. Microsoft has made clear that ADO is on life support, and are slowly stripping features out like public repos.
I look forward to when GitHub Actions has feature parity with Azure Pipelines.
90% uptime is abysmal. That degree of poor performance can easily cost astounding amounts of money and/or cause secondary incidents. It's just harder to quantify than the cost of switching.
Maybe for big companies that irresponsibly vendor-locked themselves, but I work at a SMB (~60 employees) and we switched to Forgejo in a couple days
I would not call it irresponsible. If you have a big, long running project you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow, but switching vendors can require redoing work that was built over years.
>develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow,
Beware the trap of making the pipeline so complicated it's like code except you can't debug it like regular code, and takes an hour between attempts to see if it worked.
> you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing
Opinion: Complex build processes are great. Complex _pipelines_ are a trap. I'm in a position to see the output of a lot of teams at a very large company. The teams that have complex build processes _that they can run locally_, and then have some trivial CI yaml to run the build, are doing great.
The teams that designed their build around CI are brittle and eventually end up in a state where they can _only_ do some parts of their build on CI.
IME it's worth it to set very hard boundaries shaped like: (1) Everything needs to be able to be run locally (usually in a devcontainer), (2) CI config shall be stupid simple. If you have more than like two lines in a script section, it goes into a Tools/Build script file that must work locally and is just called in a one-line CI script.
#1 guarantees you can operate without CI, and #2 guarantees you can move CI providers trivially.
If only we had a way to run code in a pre-defined isolated environment that can hide most of the differences of the actual hardware...
Oh, we do have Docker/Podman?
Then why not use _them_ to define your build pipelines? Bonus points: you can run them locally without tearing out your hair. And you can use normal scripting languages and task runners (taskfiles, good old makefiles, Ninja, etc.) for sequencing.
Most companies?
Do you have a source for that claim?
i can be the source for that claim
I really do wonder if the disruptions caused by the outages are starting to match the disruptions caused by a migration (which at least has a foreseeable end to it, theoretically).
Like even with the "will somebody please think of the operational costs" aspect, I really do wonder if the good old lock-in extortion math actually still holds in GH's favor.
I've had exactly zero issues hosting Forgejo. GitHub is only going to get worse.
GitHub ripped out the logo that said "meritocracy" on it because the new CEO and its internal self-described feminist coder groups found it "problematic." The CEO even went on Twitter with a smug "Words matter." tweet. Coincidentally, it wasn't long after when their quality really started to nosedive.
Welcome, i left 2 years ago, i'm surprised more haven't.
I use https://sharemygit.com to share repos around.
So why no self-hosted GitLab then?
GitLab is also getting worse and worse. They're going full-in on AI and each new release is more cluttered with useless features and requires more and more resources to run smoothly. After six years self-hosting a GitLab instance for a few hundred users (among which a few dozens are quite active), I abandoned this summer and I'm currently migrating the instance to Forgejo.
It's a shame because I like GitLabs UX and runners much more than other forges. I've been considering forking gitlab and removing complexity. GitLab uses multiple GB of memory idle with no users. It's sad.
I agree. GitLab UI was great and the simplicity of its CI/CD is unequaled on other forges. It's sad that Forgejo went with the actions model from GitHub which introduce a lot of useless complexity. But it seems that Woodpecker CI [1] could be a good candidate to replace GitLab CI, as it uses very similar concepts and workflow description files.
[1] https://woodpecker-ci.org/
Gitea installs like a Breeze
A vanilla git server works great too.
The problem is nothing competes with GitHub.
I know, GitLab. Gitea. Bitbucket. They have some features, but it’s like suggesting I drive a Nissan Sentra because my BMW breaks down once in a while.
I blame Microslop
It’s only fair when the big guy steals intellectual property from the small guy.