AllBugsFeaturesChangelogSearchNew post
Sign in with Fluxer
Features

Migrate to Codeberg

(#913) Feature Under consideration meta
by RexSystem edited originally by @Sylos-Creator on GitHub

Problem

Just a potential suggestion. Microsoft sucks, we shouldn't be giving them our business. Codeberg can support organizations, codeberg pages (like github pages), repo restrictions and more. Codeberg is non-profit, EU based.

Proposed solution

Codeberg is non-profit, EU based. Not a US tech giant. Codeberg also has an option to migrate repos directly too. But not sure if it will migrate PRs and issues though. So that might be kind of annoying. If we don't think this is worth the effort, then maybe we shouldn't. But.. might as well do it while we're early before it's way later in the project potentially.

8 comments

Sign in with Fluxer to comment and vote.
Comment by Rex
RexSystem 1 vote
Status changed from Shipped to Under consideration
Reopened because it was marked shipped but staff said there were no plans to leave GitHub.
Permalink
Comment by @birdybro
RexSystem 1 vote originally by @birdybro on GitHub 3 replies
One downside of migration to codeberg is losing all that free CI running.
Permalink
Comment by @tgf9
RexSystem 1 vote originally by @tgf9 on GitHub
losing all that free CI running
What do you mean by losing free CI running? Codeberg has two free-of-charge CI offerings: Forgejo Actions and Woodpecker CI. Forgejo Actions is enabled by default for all accounts. Woodpecker does require an explicit access to be granted, but it's fast and easy to request. You just create an issue here: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-e.V./requests Big projects like Zig have managed to migrate to Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/ziglang
Permalink
Comment by @birdybro
RexSystem 1 vote originally by @birdybro on GitHub
Don't get me wrong I'm not a codeberg hater, but there are realistic caveats to consider. Last I remember (maybe they changed some of this):
  1. You have to request access to CI from codeberg last I checked. They then confirm that it's an approved FLOSS project. With GitHub you just get the access right away.
  2. CI use on codeberg is being done through donated hardware by users so while they don't have quota limits they are not in a situation where you can "reliably" (in principle, in practice GitHub uptime is a meme) just spin up more CI indefinitely the way Microsoft Azure-backed GitHub can. Github allows you to have unlimited CI minutes as long as it's a public repo, codeberg does not.
  3. Codeberg only has Linux runners currently, no MacOS or Windows runners, if you wanted more thorough regression testing automated.
Permalink
Comment by @tgf9
RexSystem 1 vote originally by @tgf9 on GitHub
You have to request access to CI from codeberg last I checked. They then confirm that it's an approved FLOSS project. With GitHub you just get the access right away.
Yes, this is still true. But I recently went through this and got approved within a few hours. This isn't really a big deal. However, yeah, I can see how points 2 and 3 may be more relevant. Both could be solved by self-hosting some runners if there were interest.
Permalink
Comment by @sand-head
RexSystem 1 vote originally by @sand-head on GitHub
there's also Tangled, which runs off of the same protocol behind Bluesky, ATProto. could be an option what with some of the focus Fluxer has on Bluesky
Permalink
Comment by @ferdbold
RexSystem 1 vote edited originally by @ferdbold on GitHub
I support this too. While there is a downside of losing on free CI, the upside is that Codeberg does not put a bandwidth limit on LFS objects, which is currently an issue on this repo (https://feedback.fluxer.com/p/39)
Permalink