Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If you don't yet want to publish, why do you need GitHub or Bitbucket? Why not just keep the repository local?

My two cents on this are that I always try to outsource any internal services to reduce maintenance time. For example

1. Own git repository will need backup and server configuration to be accessed from all machines that I own, which means I will need to spend time on security.

2. Own GitLab instance will mean 1 + system resources ( GitLab actually uses more than I would like to spare )

3. If I need to benefit hooks and pretty UI I would also need to do 1 + 2 + writing README files and integrate with different CI services.

What I figured out is that there are 1 and 2 outsourced and free ( bitbucket ), so I would not bother doing this on my own.



If you have a machine with SSH access and git, you can always use git+ssh as a cheap remoting solution... it works pretty well, but usability isn't quite as nice as with github/gitlab etc... If you're one person, it's probably good enough though.


Yeah I know I've used such a setup for a couple of years. I got a special SSH user "git" with key only login.

Later on I wanted to track what repositories I had on that machine and get some stats. I found out about GitLab so I decided to take a spin. Two months after the install I found out I was hacked, because of gitlab-shell binary that I didn't patch :(.

Then I decided not to mess with this if I can use it for free.

:)

Anyway thanks for your comment. I think people that think GitHub is "magic" should run their own repo to see actually where "Git" ends and "Hub" starts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: