Have you checked out Gitlab? It looks quite cool. https://about.gitlab.com

It doesn't look good, it's great. I mean it. They give Gitlab CE for free on their website, see what it can do: https://about.gitlab.com/features/#enterprise Only gitlab.com does more than github + integration service. Recently GL CEO wrote here on HN that if you host gitlab yourself for your opensource project you could get lifetime CE version by writing to them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10924406

Our Community Edition (CE) is MIT licensed and will always be free for everyone, without asking. We discussed giving GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) licenses to open source projects. But it turned out that it is better to make the features that are essential open source completely https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10926400 So we did that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10931884 and will keep doing that.

My experience on the two boxes I have installed GitLab CE on using the .deb packages was that it hosed apt in both cases. So, YMMV

Please email me or [email protected] with this problem. I've never heard this before and we take this very seriously.

Our Omnibus packages installs all GitLab dependencies in the /opt directory. If this is not your thing it might be good to know that there are now official native Debian packages for GitLab 8.4 (still working on Jesse backport).

Bitbucket is also quite affordable if you're willing to host on your own: https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing?tab=hos...

Bitbucket is also quite affordable even if you're not willing to host your own.

Their pricing is different to Github. GH pricing increases with the number of private repositories needed, whereas BB prices based on team members, with unlimited private repositories.

For a small team like ours, with lots of small repositories, it's a no brainer.

Same with us, BitBucket has been absolutely great, I actually like their UI better (just a taste thing).

I find Bitbucket a lot easier to navigate as well. Some stuff in github is really unintuitive until you have used it a few times.

It's the little things that make the difference for me - like being able to restrict pushing to certain branches to either specific people or specific groups, which has saved a lot of accidents.

When you're developing an open source application, though, you need the community of Github. I'm hoping that changes in the future. Not that Github goes away, just that alternatives are equally as viable to build a community around.

Indeed, that and I like it's team -> project -> repository UI a great deal, even though I mostly work alone I can create a team for each client, multiple projects and repositories spread between them.

I've few complaints about bitbucket and when you consider it's still free for me it's insane (I've felt so bad by how much I used it I kinda wish they would charge a few bucks a month sometimes).

I have many small open source projects, so bitbucket (which has unlimited public repositories) is in theory a better fit for these: each project can gets its own repository, vs. having each project in a sub-directory of one repository in github.

Unfortunately, bitbucket lacks some features: their markdown syntax does not allow HTML and they have no views / downloads statistics. The lack of statistics means that their search feature is not so good- no way to sort by popularity.

I'm trying gitlab now: it also doesn't seem to have views/downloads stats. Also the web-site was slow a few days ago.

The lack of statistics is odd: even sourceforge has this.

Well never mind: github does allow unlimited public repositories. I don't know why I thought otherwise.

Yes, my current preference is for Bitbucket, but a large part of that is that I personally prefer Hg to Git. I still eneded up finally making a GitHub account just because so many other projects are hosted there.

I was thinking the same thing - it would be really nice if they could return SourceForge to its former status.

I don't feel too strongly about GitHub one way or the other, but having some more options can only help.

You can't repair such a breach of trust, sourceforge is forever tainted.

Not just that, SF's infrastructure is incredibly obsolete.

Before the malware shenanigans started, they could have tried to relaunch with a full rewrite, keeping just the brand. Now even the brand is tainted, there is nothing left except a large database of users and SSH keys (and Slashdot, which apparently is still read by some people).

I think that's a bit harsh.. there is still a ton of software hosted only on sourceforge. And plenty of people that need the software that don't know about sourceforge's bad behavior. When I am researching random software or libraries, I find myself on an almost daily basis temporarily overriding the ublock rule for sourceforge.

Not only that but it's incredibly difficult to build up trust as a host of installers/exes from scratch.

That's pure PR bull that'll have no bearing in reality - and if you boil that statement down he's said nothing, committed to nothing.

True, most of what the guy said seemed pretty gauzy. But putting a stop to the bad practices was one of the few immediately actionable things he said.

at least a github exodus is just a git clone away

Except that every other site links to your repo on GitHub and all the Issues, pull requests, Wiki and Website are there.

Well, hosting everything with a service that is backed by a company and over which you have no control was never a good move. See how Rainer Gerhards hosts his rsyslog (http://blog.gerhards.net/2013_12_01_archive.html): one canonical repository, and GitHub as a peer. Given git's distributed nature, there can be as many clones in as many services (Gitlab, BitBucket, others) as maintainers deem sensible.

The same could be said of gitorious.org shutting down, but for the past 8 months it's been inaccessible by the Web or via git. It's just recently returned as a read-only archive (thanks to archive.org, I believe); they claim that clone URLs should work again now, although I've not had reason to try one yet.

Keep in mind that even with announcements and long shutdowns, many projects would be lost without officially-sanctioned archiving; either because their author has moved on, or they might do all of their project interaction via git commands and never see warnings on the Web interface.

This is like saying that rsync and dropbox are the same thing. A github exodus is certainly possible, and it's great that github doesn't have a ton of tight lock-in (though it has some) via proprietary crap, but it's still a lot of work to leave github.

Incidentally, have you seen the original Dropbox post on HN? The second top comment is all about how it's pointless because you can "trivially" build the same thing yourself with FTP and other assorted software.

Except that the git is the least important part of GitHub. The real value is in the community and the extra services that it provides around the git source control system.

To move away from GitHub one would have to not only clone the repository (and all of the branches, tags, etc), but also scrape off the Wiki, Issues, and contact information of contributors. Then they would need to set up an alternative with a similar security infrastructure and notify everyone relevant to its existence.

subtile source insertions- would you notice them?

There is not even a measurement tool for trust on commits right now. Nothing like- (Line / NrOfDiffrentComittersTouching)* ComitersTrustworthyness according to other Projects * NrOfSimilarUnreviewedLines

Where there is no metric, there is no trust, not even in open source.

No it's not if you want to have feature parity.

Essentially it is, though:

http://doc.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/importing/import_projects_...

Why don't you setup your own private server on Amazon or Azure or whatever? Taking SF that uses Subversion, I'd install SVN server on cloud.