Comment by jph

43 minutes ago

Because of so many GitHub problems, I'm adding GitLab.com and Codeberg.org.

Setup is simply 3 steps:

1. Sign up on each service, ideally with the same username.

2. For each repo you want to share, create the same repo name as a blank repo; do not automatically create a README.

3. Edit your local file .git/config to add push URLs, then push as usual.

Example:

    [remote "origin"]
        url = git@github.com:foo/bar.git
        pushurl = git@codeberg.org:foo/bar.git
        pushurl = git@github.com:foo/bar.git
        pushurl = git@gitlab.com:foo/bar.git
        fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*

7 comments

jph

Reply
guessmyname  23 minutes ago

Where do you keep Issues, Pull Requests, Wikis, Discussions, project boards, and everything else? (rhetorical question.)

These days, the problem with cloud-hosted Git platforms is not where to push your code. Replicating repositories across multiple providers is relatively easy, and Git has always been good at that. The harder problem is that successful teams end up accumulating a lot more than source code around their repositories, and much of that information becomes just as important as the code itself.

Bug reports, feature requests, documentation, design discussions, code reviews, project planning, CI/CD configuration, and years of historical context all tend to live inside platforms such as GitHub. While the Git repository itself is portable, all of that surrounding data is often much harder to migrate cleanly, especially if a team has built workflows and integrations around a particular provider.

That, in my view, is one of the main reasons so many companies are heavily dependent on GitHub. Moving the code elsewhere is usually straightforward; moving the entire development process, with all of its history, metadata, and institutional knowledge, is not. When GitHub goes down, the question is often less about where you can push your next commit and more about how easily you can recreate the rest of the environment that your team relies on every day.

  • dijit  2 minutes ago

    (I upvoted you, for asking the real questions, but to answer)

    > Where do you keep Issues,

    Youtrack

    > Pull Requests,

    Gerrit, it's way better for code review

    > Wikis,

    Also Youtrack, but other software exists that's specific for this, I have seen Confluence used a lot and while I don't recommend: that's usually the case.

    > Discussions,

    As far away from code as possible, right now it's Zulip

    > project boards,

    Youtrack, though usually in companies they use Jira for this.

    > and everything else? (rhetorical question.)

    In proper tools that are designed to solve a specific need, not try to do everything: badly.

    --

    Now, a sane person will respond to me with the fact that I haven't removed any single points of failure, I've actually just added more of them. They'd be right! The differences is that it makes the stack a bit more flexible and composable. Migration of, say, the Wiki, doesn't make major issues because it's already somewhat decoupled.

jvanderbot  28 minutes ago

And for fun, just spin up an ec2 machine and initialize some bare repos there.

  • john01dav  26 minutes ago

    What's the purpose of using EC2 over something much cheaper, like OVH, digitalocean, or Hetnzer?

    Usually the argument is for scalability, but a single VM for personal use doesn't need that, and even if you do want that, you'll need more than a bare repo.

kg  11 minutes ago

Somehow I never knew that you can have multiple push URLs for a single remote. Thank you for sharing this, I've been manually pushing to two remotes with a script for years!