• Slashme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    9 hours ago

    That’s the genius of git: it’s not tied to any website. Pull your repo from here and push it to there and you’re cooking.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The website around it is also just optional. You can dump git repos anywhere you want.

      Of course the website is helpful and adds tooling, bit it’s an extra nonetheless

      • Slashme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Yep, amazingly flexible. If Linus had only ever made git, he’d have gone down as one of the greats.

        • iglou@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If Linus had only ever made git, he’d have gone down as one of the greats.

          As opposed to also having made the most used kernel in the world?

    • shadowtofu@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yes, that’s true for the git repo itself, but a git forge can provide a multitude of related services, including issues and pull request management, CI/CD pipelines, wikis, static content hosting, package registries, etc. which are not as easily migrated.

      • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I honestly think wiki, static hosting, package registries etc. don’t belong on a git repo. Github has continuously extended their feature-set, but its caused vendor lock-in which I think is the point. How hard is it to spin up a web service to host static content? There are loads of good open source wiki projects, etc.

        • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          34 minutes ago

          Depends on the point of the wiki I feel, if it’s project documentation it should be in git alongside the code, if it’s a generic “document store” then yeah there’s better storage backends than git.

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Why do it yourself in a complicated way and poke holes in my firewall and security if I can use the existing infrastructure that is already a publiclly accessible web page to host just another one? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯