DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
97% Positive
Analyzed from 2283 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#pushin#git#don#something#more#code#before#trust#https#sorry
Discussion (70 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
*The product is stable, but still in development. That's why some of the core things like pricing, etc. are missing. BUT:*
1. Business Model: Pushin will have subscriptions for individuals and teams. Pricing is not yet decided but it'll be close to GitHub/GitLab pricing.
2. Privacy: In true German fashion, we *don't* want your private data. Pushin doesn't track anything beyond the obvious: email, password hash, username, whatever information you put on your profile.
3. Roadmap: We're currently in Beta, but everything looks good so far. We'll probably go GA beginning of 2027. I'll focus on delivering the core features first and make sure that they are polished and of good quality before moving on to the nice-to-haves.
4. I say "we" but it's really only me (Peter Ullrich, peterullrich.com) and my dog (Bella, Labrador, beige). "We" are not VC funded, but bootstrapping on bare metal Scaleway servers. My wish is for this to become a proper company soon though.
5. Tech-stack: Elixir (Phoenix + LiveView) for most parts, Rust for the Git parts, S3-compatible buckets and Postgres on Scaleway, servers are bare metal Scaleway servers running in Paris.
6. Git implementation: Just like Tangled, I've used Rust and the gitoxide libraries to build a Git implementation that's fully compatible with the canonical Git CLI, but uses S3-compatible buckets as storage instead of keeping the entire repo on disk. I'll write in-depth about this soon, but it's very much what Tangled did, just with a different storage concept.
I gotta be honest that I'm both scared but also excited that Pushin hit HN. I wish we'd be better prepared, but here we are. Many thanks to anyone who is willing to try it out!
Especially for a got service, something what would will be eminently used by software developers, who mostly can speak English anyway.
We plan to reduce low-quality contributions through several features, some already in place and others still to come. Invite-only registration helps us discourage low-quality accounts and confirm that new members are real people. Next, we plan to introduce a vouching system, similar to Tangled's, that lets contributors build a reputation. We'll combine that reputation with other signals to assess new pull requests and issues. Contributions that appear low quality will be clearly marked and de-emphasized, while maintainers will make the final decision. We also plan to limit how many pull requests and issues a new contributor can open in repositories they don't own. This will be an ongoing effort, but the goal is simple: maintainers stay in control of their queues.
Ironic really because that was the original idea behind Git - to build a tree of trusted developers for the Linux kernel. Linus has those immediately below him that he trusts will push good quality code, and those folks do the same with their group of contributors.
> Invite-only registration helps us
If this is invite-only, then what you're doing is emulating the original strategy of Linus: only certain folks have commit rights. Extend that out to only certain folks have PR-creation rights and you're done. Maintainers select those that can contribute, these folks in-turn, select those that can contribute to the project, rinse and repeat.
Let everyone create issues and implicitly ignore these because any issue that doesn't make it passed the "acceptance level of a maintainer" will naturally be ignored and disappear. As is the case over at GH - issues naturally suffocate because no maintainer gives them air.
Perhaps have a special category "untrusted/toxic PRs" for contributors who don't belong in the tree of trust. These PRs are handled in a toxic-proof containment environment, i.e., they get particular vetting attentions by maintainers. Obviously this would be a path into the "tree of trust" for a project.
Then each project can also implicitly define what is "low quality" for their project - it's how they handle the "toxic PRs".
EDIT:
That's also why branching and forking is so cheap in Git: each sub-maintainer can maintain their own fork with it's branches before pushing up changes to the main fork. (Compare branching using RCS/CVS or Subversion to Git to get a feeling of "cheap" ;))
This can be done over at GH if a fork would be actively maintained by a sub-maintainer and every X days/weeks/months they would push the entire changes of the fork to the main repository. That would be closer to the Linux development strategy - as I understand it.
This seems poorly worded or genuinely concerning. Why do you want to track my email, username or anything in my profile. What do you do with it? How do you track it?
The UI is a lot snappier than Github.
The promise not to train models on the code is not very useful for public repos, and I cannot see anything about private repos.
The humour is there: https://pushin.eu/orgs/mctestface/members (Boaty Mac Boat Face ref mentioned)
I'd love a CI platform that just used a super thin docker + script driver. Rather than platform specific YAML files that define steps.
also fits the description of "Git hosting that never leaves Europe".
Codeberg Terms of Use[^0] makes it clear that it's only for "projects covered by a licence for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works", and "You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools". They also only provide private repos where the FOSS system need it for their infra or what not, and not just for any purpose.
These are totally fine for Codeberg to do, and it's wonderful for FOSS!!
However it is not a viable place for many projects that are on GitHub/GitLab now and would want to migrate, say: any commercial project, that would need "permission-free" private repos, or when the teams want to decided themselves how much generative AI their developers should use, not their Git-hosting provider...
So yeah, different ballpark.
[0]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...
That name though, does make me feel that somewhere in the stack is a tool called Gitler. Sorry!!
Once upon a time, I, too, had a domain where the TLD was part of the actual name and required to read it correctly (think something like foobar-pl.us). In my experience this left most people confused and I abandoned that quite quickly.
It should cost money - I just want to know how much.
I'll introduce subscriptions soon, we're currently still in invite-only beta, but the subscriptions will be very much like GitHub/GitLabs with individual and team pricing.
Idea is promising though, hope it matures into something solid.
And yet the marketing copy is egregious AI slop.
There's a possibility this was made by a person. Apart from that good luck getting any information behind this.
Hm.
Which country do you recommend? Offshore on my own boat?
When in the US it does not protect you from getting deported based on what you said.
Non American protestors inside the US have faced consequences for their actions, in the past.
To a degree that is perfectly sensible: You would not want foreigners to oppose you from inside.
https://cis.org/Fishman/Sorry-Mahmoud-Khalil-Aliens-Do-Not-H...
Still, first amendment is of less importance to us outside the country.
Ignoring this, Europe's 'freedom of speech' is pitiful.