How do people even on hacker news of all places conflate git with a code hosting platform all the time? Codeberg, GitHub or whatever are for tracking issues, running CI, hosting builds, and much more.

The idea that you shouldn't need a code hosting platform because git is decentralized is so out of place that it is genuinely puzzling how often it pops up.

OP didn't conflate them.

They said they want to be able to rely on their git remote.

The people responding are saying "nah, an unreliable remote is fine because you can use other remotes" which doesn't address their problem. If Codeberg is unreliable, then why use it at all? Especially for CI, issues, and collab?

The person you’re replying to is saying that you can do everything outside of tracking issues, running CI, ... without a remote. Like all Git operations that are not about collaboration. (but there is always email)

Maybe a hard blocker if you are pair programming or collaborating every minute. Not really if you just have one hour to program solo.

How do people on hacker news keep having reading issues?

The parent post mentionned: "the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote."

Emphasis one "code", not triaging issues, merging other people's branches, etc.

Besides there are tools to sync forgejo repositories including PRs and issues.

It's also trivial to have multiple remotes, I do in most of my repos. When one has issues I just push to the other instead of both.

The original intent of the authors is by now irrelevant. The current "point" of git is that it's the most used version control solution, with good tooling support from third parties. Nothing more. And most people prefer to use it in a centralised fashion.

That doesn't remove the fact that when people are working on the code, their local copy doesn't disappear after they pushed their commits and a local copy is still available.

Only exception is when people are using the code editor embedded in the "forge" but this is usually an exceptional use rather than the norm.

> That doesn't remove the fact that when people are working on the code, their local copy doesn't disappear after they pushed their commits and a local copy is still available.

It doesn't remove it but doesn't make it very relevant either, because of all the tests that are necessarily done remotely and can't be done locally, and without that feedback in many cases development is not possible.