Github is an extra layer of backup, among normal backups.
[edit]
Notable reasons:
- Github runners went oftenly out of space & they were slow. With self hosted runners I don't have these issues anymore because I control the hardware.
Previously I was paying Docker Build Cloud/Depot for performance + Github Pro for extra minutes. Now it's zero cost, superb performance and unlimited minutes.
- I have a centralized registry with private packages and images.
- It's secure, I don't worry if I accidentally make a repo public or leak secrets. I control the access to it in network level.
- I own everything, in case something goes nuts (eg lose access to GH) I'm safe.
If you're using github as a backup, then whatever you say you own, they also own. So I still don't understand why you are self-hosting and using github as an extra layer of backup. Seems philosophically inconsistent.
Not GP. Probably less dependencies on github, e.g. actions which sometimes don't work. This way github is a "dumb backup".
I selfhost forgejo (gitea fork) on home sever (nuc), similar setup with tailscale. I was planning to setup git mirror on a remote VM for backup, but since I am the only one using it and have everything on dev laptop and remote backups of nuc server I didn't bother to do that (I know I still should).
Yeah I should've asked why they are self-hosting in the first place. I was wrong in assuming that they wanted to host it themselves (that is, avoiding an external dependency).
The self hosting will still be there and working as expected no matter what GH does (fails... again, DMCAs the repo, bans the account, etc.). Self hosting isn't only about being the only one with the data, it's also for the independence aspect. GH as a backup doesn't hinder the independence. Network effects are strong and make a lot of developers still have a GH presence as a secondary platform.
The evolution is when one can finally fully disconnect from GH, the main self hosted platform will continue to operate as if nothing happened.
A migration can have a period of parallel running.
Github is an extra layer of backup, among normal backups.
[edit]
Notable reasons:
- Github runners went oftenly out of space & they were slow. With self hosted runners I don't have these issues anymore because I control the hardware.
Previously I was paying Docker Build Cloud/Depot for performance + Github Pro for extra minutes. Now it's zero cost, superb performance and unlimited minutes.
- I have a centralized registry with private packages and images.
- It's secure, I don't worry if I accidentally make a repo public or leak secrets. I control the access to it in network level.
- I own everything, in case something goes nuts (eg lose access to GH) I'm safe.
If you're using github as a backup, then whatever you say you own, they also own. So I still don't understand why you are self-hosting and using github as an extra layer of backup. Seems philosophically inconsistent.
Nothing philosophical here. Whatever makes you productive.
I own the git, the runners, the registry etc and just use GH for backup. GH cannot interrupt suddenly my business.
[dead]
Not GP. Probably less dependencies on github, e.g. actions which sometimes don't work. This way github is a "dumb backup".
I selfhost forgejo (gitea fork) on home sever (nuc), similar setup with tailscale. I was planning to setup git mirror on a remote VM for backup, but since I am the only one using it and have everything on dev laptop and remote backups of nuc server I didn't bother to do that (I know I still should).
> This way github is a "dumb backup"
Eh? What GH department do you work in anyways? Training Data Sustainability?
I don't understand your question. If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo?
edit: If you think I sound like an LLM, I guess that is what happens when most of your interactions in English language are with LLMs.
Given the state of it, you might well ...
I missed the opportunity to add "you are absolutely right".
> If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo?
Why not. But you are saying github as a dumb backup makes sense when you do self-hosting. I don't think you really believe that.
GH as a backup and a downstream public mirror for a self-hosted gitea or similar is entirely purposful. None of your comments have made any sense.
Yeah I should've asked why they are self-hosting in the first place. I was wrong in assuming that they wanted to host it themselves (that is, avoiding an external dependency).
Because the existence and continued normal operation of the primary is not dependent upon the capricious whims or instability of GitHub.
The self hosting will still be there and working as expected no matter what GH does (fails... again, DMCAs the repo, bans the account, etc.). Self hosting isn't only about being the only one with the data, it's also for the independence aspect. GH as a backup doesn't hinder the independence. Network effects are strong and make a lot of developers still have a GH presence as a secondary platform.
The evolution is when one can finally fully disconnect from GH, the main self hosted platform will continue to operate as if nothing happened.
A migration can have a period of parallel running.
[dead]