12
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Charger8232@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

I am looking for recommendations for an open source self-hosted ~~version control system~~ source code hosting service. I found a few, but I can't decide on which one to pick:

If there's a better one than the ones I've listed here, I'd love to hear about it!

I care primarily about privacy and security, if that makes any difference.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

The things you're describing aren't really version control systems themselves. Git is a version control system; these are an ecosystem of web-based tools surrounding that version control system.

I don't know if there's a good term for these.

kagis

Wikipedia calls them "forges":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)

In free and open-source software (FOSS) development communities, a forge is a web-based collaborative software platform for both developing and sharing computer applications.

For software developers it is an online service to host the tools they need to work and communicate with their coworkers. It provides a workflow to propose modifications and engage in discussions. The goal is to reach an agreement that will allow these modifications to be merged into the software repository.

For users, a forge is a repository of computer applications, a place where bugs can be reported, a channel to be informed of security issues, etc.

The source code itself is stored in a revision control system and linked to a wide range of services such as a code review, bug database, continuous integration, etc. When a development community forks, it duplicates the content of the forge and is then able to modify it without asking permission. A community may rely on services scattered on multiple forges: they are not necessarily hosted under the same domain.

[-] Charger8232@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I guess it would be more akin to a "source code hosting service," but that would imply that I intend to open it to the internet (which isn't necessarily the case).

[-] whatwhatwhatwhat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Sorry for the off-topic question, but this has been driving me crazy.

Is “kagis” the verb for using the search engine “kagi”? For the longest time I’ve been interpreting it as a “dejected sigh” emotional expression.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago
[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Gogs is the original. Gitea is a fork because the dev of Gogs wasn't taking community input (I think that was the reasoning behind it). Forgejo is a fork of gitea because some folks didn't like gitea forming a for profit corporation (Or something to that effect).

As far as day to day use they're all fairly similar, though it's been a long time since I used Gogs.

[-] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

It's not just the for-profit corporation, there's also governance issues. Basically, the community elected certain positions and then had the rug pulled out from them such that no elections would be held again.

In the name of the Gitea Community who elected you last year, we welcome the creation of a for-profit company that allows you to make a living out of Gitea.

[...]

We believed you when you promised to pass along the ownership of the Gitea project to your elected successors. This promise is part of an essential bond between you and the strong Community of volunteers, as well as all those who rely upon our collective efforts.

With that in mind, you can understand our surprise when we learned on October 25th, 2022 that both the domains and the trademark were transferred to a for-profit company without our knowledge or approval.

Source.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

IMO, the Gogs dev was correct. If you look at that community input and what Gitea became, I was glad to use the version that rejected it.

But I don't know how it compares with Forgejo.

You're missing GitLab. I'd be looking at GitLab or Forgejo.

But you might not need this. When you access a private Git repository, you're normally connecting over SSH and authenticating using SSH keys. By default, if you have Git installed on a server you can SSH to and you have a Git repository on that server in a location you can access, you can use that server as a Git remote. You only really want one these services if you want the CI pipelines or collaboration tools.

[-] vividspecter@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Having a web UI is useful even if you're not using the extra tools. Not mandatory of course, but nice.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

My only input is gitlab is very complicated, never used the others

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

50057 readers
126 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS