> There hasn’t been a new Git repo launch in almost a decade,” Bansal told me. “Now you have GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket from Atlassian, but that’s really it<p>Seems odd that he wouldn’t know about Sourcehut (2018) and Gitea (2016).
I won't trust Harness with anything open source. It's the same company that killed the open source Drone CI after acquiring it. They changed the license such that you could contribute to it but could not use it if your revenue was more than 1 million USD. They didn't fix bugs that were well known to them because they were working on the enterprise version of it.
> That’s changing today with the launch of the Gitness open-source Git repository and the Harness Code Repository, the hosted and managed version of Gitness.<p>Wouldn’t this violate the git trademark policy?<p><a href="https://git-scm.com/about/trademark" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://git-scm.com/about/trademark</a><p>From that link:<p>>> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service without Conservancy's written permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.
Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor which hosts their open-source code...on GitHub... with a prominent call to arms on their landing page to star their repository...on GitHub...<p>If you don't even use your own product why should anyone else use it?
How does this compare to e.g. Forgejo, Gitea, Gogs, self-hosted GitLab, or other alternatives?<p>Forgejo in particular has self-hosted actions runners that can be registered offline, and the runners themselves can be given labels and execute most existing GitHub actions (in fact, the yaml format they use is intentionally meant to be compatible with GitHub actions).<p>While the Pipelines UI looks nice, it hides all the very real details of deployment (and configuration) in a variety of environments. This is one thing Forgejo does well compared to e.g. Gitea for CI/CD, thanks to being very flexible in configuring runner secrets, registering runners, and so on. The runners themselves are also designed to run with rootless docker-in-docker. There is also the security aspect to consider. e.g. how does Pipelines prevent secrets from spilling in logs or people running bitcoin miners in CI? Does it offer a better level of security than Forgejo/Gitea here?<p>The reason I am emphasizing CI/CD is because hosting code and a bug tracker is only one small aspect of GitHub IMO. The real big things are its popularity and GitHub Actions. It's not enough for many people (and businesses) to simply host code anymore. Many now expect commits pushed to certain branches to execute a variety of workflows -- from unit tests to full-on Kubernetes deployments.
Thye aren't really competing with GitHub, which is more of consumer tool, but more with the enterprise focused GitLab which bundles CI/CD along with code hosting and bunch of other things.<p>Their focus is primarilily on Enterprise developer needs and bundling CI/CD, Internal Developer Platforms, Security, Compliance and now code hosting. They want to be the one shop for everything developer experience inside an enterprise.<p>[Source: Not a customer or a user or employee, was at their conference in SF today]
I hate to focus on this, but the website, <a href="https://gitness.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://gitness.com/</a>, is absolutely horrible. Especially on mobile. The scrolljacking seems outright hostile and the entire site feels janky and broken. You don't need scrolljacking to provide a compelling or visually differentiated design experience.
please submit original sources <<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597901">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597901</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37600545">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37600545</a> <i>(I would argue for this one, since it provides the most context)</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601002">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601002</a>
Is dark mode available or am I overlooking it?<p>Pretty impressive so far, the pipeline tool is surprisingly robust already.<p>"gist-like" snippet management would be awesome in this.
So here's the GitHub project: <a href="https://github.com/harness/gitness">https://github.com/harness/gitness</a><p>How does the project already have 27k stars? Surely this was not public before?<p>Or do you think drone always had this product?
It is interesting how many teams and even large businesses fall into the github/gitlab/atlassian trap. I worked for a couple that spend a shit-ton of money to have some measure of "cloud agnostics" while they throw out their Jenkins servers and they migrate all of their cicd to github, gitlab or atlassian. With github it is a SaaS service. With Gitlab, they have an "enterprise" version. In quotes because the "enterprise" version has no scaling support. You can't run more than one active node. And if you use their special "geo" feature for read only nodes they can't run cicd. It is really ridiculous any large business would migrate from a couple of fleets of Jenkins to this. But hey, gotta do what business decided to do.
Interestingly it looks like this is partly a fork of Gitea (or at least, incorporates large amounts of code from Gitea): <a href="https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/files#diff-4673a3aba01813b595de187a7a6e9e63a3491d55821606fecd9f13a10c188a1d">https://github.com/harness/gitness/pull/3364/files#diff-4673...</a>
Gitness is built around Drone CI... Oh reading the comments, it's an extension of Drone.<p>How compatible have Drone CI and it's open-source fork Woodpecker? I'm curious whether one might expect any kind of engine swap to work.
I'm not convinced but it only being gotten on GitHub…<p>I understand it being on GitHub because that might get them more traction, but should the not be hiding primarily on their own text?