I don’t have strong opinions about Zig or Codeberg, but I find the self-described status of the latter’s infrastructure concerning[1]: they’re seemingly running faulty hardware in production with limited redundancy, and are actively soliciting more hardware of unknown quality/reliability/provenance from their community. This is cool for a hobbyist project, but it doesn’t scream “stable platform for a post-GitHub world,” which is how I’ve seen Codeberg (aspirationally) described.
[1]: https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-onwards-and-u...
Reading the infra part of the post made me smile, I spent part of my week putting workloads on spot but this is the real spot market. Chaos monkey is running in prod if you are ready for it or not.
Jokes aside, the technical depth it takes to make that one server run is impressive. That makes me more interested in codeberg, not less, though I’m going to keep my own mirror of the zig repo until they get some better hardware.
To be clear, I’m not knocking it; I also like to reuse old computers. But it’s incongruous with replacing GitHub, rather that being a “weirdo hobbyist” version of GitHub.
And yet the amount of work time I've missed out on from github being down is slightly concerning in retrospect. I imagine the smaller scale of codeberg will actually lead to more uptime despite chaos monkey's best efforts.
The numbers aren’t looking great so far[1]: they’re not cracking 3 9s on their primary service, and their CI/CD isn’t even cracking 2 9s. And these numbers are much better than when I checked a few days ago!
(This should not be read to imply that I think that GitHub’s reliability is acceptable; it clearly isn’t.)
[1]: https://status.codeberg.eu/status/codeberg
Uptime above 99 I really would only care about the time to get back working. My enterprise experience with Github was multiple days of no work in a year.
> we hope to use direct solar power to operate CI/CD nodes only during sunshine hours
Status: CI down due to cloud issues.
I would like to know the reasoning why Zig chose Codeberg instead of self-hosting something like gitea or forgejo.
Seems to be a safer bet to limit hosting related weaknesses and unknowns, considering move from github being quite disruptive already.
We always have the option of exiting Codeberg to a self-hosted Forgejo instance if that should become necessary for some reason. (Not that I expect it will, considering Codeberg is a non-profit.)
We do self-host all our CI machines.
It seems like they have reliability issues; if I read their status page correctly, they have incidents every few minutes. Or how should one read their all green page?