9

There are a number of questions about GitHub replacements here.

I am looking for one, too. However, I am not willing to install all the myriad of cruft that many of these tools like Gitlab require … no ruby+postgresql+nginx+redis+unicorn+sidekiq+node.js …

I know that is currently highly popular to string together any technology you can find. Best also mix 10 different programming languages, too. WTF? The insanity is best seen by the manual gitlab installation description and the Arch Linux gitlab installation. Why use both a SQL and a NoSQL database?!? And an own web server unicorn, plus nginx? Next they will add Elasticsearch, I'm pretty sure. In case you have several TB of repositories to index. Stop pretending this is "big data" …

But for having a software run a key business part for the next x years, I'd like to have something less fancy and more reliable …

Any recommendations for a low-dependencies self-hosted GitHub alternative? Open-source only, and Linux is a must (so e.g. Gitstack is out).

My wishlist:

  1. Low dependencies. In particular, no Ruby, PHP, Node.js or Elasticsearch. No pretending this is big data; Git repositories that are over 1 GB are broken by design.

  2. Good web-frontend for Git, with forking and pull requests. No code editing in browser needed.

  3. Issue tracking is a plus, but not a must (but usually, pull requests implies some kind of issue management).

  4. Access control. At least on a repository level, preferably on a branch level. Private and public repositories must be supported.

  5. Works with standard tools instead of all the fancy tool-of-the-day that disappear into oblivion in a year.

  6. Open-source. To ensure long-term viability, and I don't have a budget I could spend. Plus, using closed-source for open-source-development is kind of bastardization, isn't it? Real open-source -- not one where the backing company decides to make it a commercial tool next year.

In the end, I would like it to be like Git. Powerful, yet simple, minimalistic and reliable. Running everywhere, instead of pulling in a bag of dependencies that can and will eventually break. If you know Git, then you know that a lot of the functionality are just frontends for "rebase".

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    Probably off-topic, but: have a look at Fossil instead. While it's specifically not based on git (yikes!), it's rightly called Github-in-a-box. Suitable for small teams; has a low learning curve, integrated wiki and bug tracker, and you'd never find anything easier to set up. (Provides --git export still, for syncing.)
    – mario
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 23:48
  • 1
    Sorry, but git is a must.
    – Has QUIT--Anony-Mousse
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 1:32
  • This reads quite a bit like a rant, frankly.
    – Huey
    Commented Jun 5, 2015 at 10:43
  • GitLab provides Omnibus packages, which are extremely easy to set up. I manage several GitLab installations via the Omnibus packages and have very few complaints.
    – Jonathon Reinhart
    Commented Feb 9, 2017 at 23:20
  • "Fat" packages is the wrong thing™. It doesn't reduce overhead, bugs, compatibility, upgrade, maintenance issues that come from stacking too many packages.
    – Has QUIT--Anony-Mousse
    Commented Feb 10, 2017 at 8:38

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

I have been quite happy with Gitblit. It requires Java, but that is literally the only dependency. It is totally self-contained, unless you want to set up your own Servlet container and configure it yourself, which it also allows.

Improve this answer
1

At this point, Gogs (https://github.com/gogits/gogs) might be a good answer for you. Its written in golang, low dependencies, low resource requirements, single binary, little configuration, no fancy features but very robust.

Improve this answer
1

RhodeCode works well for us.

As for your wishlist:

Low dependencies. In particular, no Ruby, PHP, Node.js or Elasticsearch. No pretending this is big data; Git repositories that are over 1 GB are broken by design.

RhodeCode uses Elasticsearch, which is great in our case, since we have legacy repos of 25+ Gb.

Good web-frontend for Git, with forking and pull requests. No code editing in browser needed.

It has a neat UI, with in-browser code editing. RhodeCode Interface

Issue tracking is a plus, but not a must (but usually, pull requests implies some kind of issue management).

We use Jira, but I know that RhodeCode integrates with RedMine and a bunch of others tools.

Access control. At least on a repository level, preferably on a branch level. Private and public repositories must be supported.

Control can be set at repository/branch/user group level. LDAP, Active Directory, 2-FA, etc. are supported as well.

Works with standard tools instead of all the fancy tool-of-the-day that disappear into oblivion in a year.

From what I know, it integrates with the most tools, which are now de-facto industry standard: RedMine, Jira, Slack, HipChat, etc.

Open-source. To ensure long-term viability, and I don't have a budget I could spend. Plus, using closed-source for open-source-development is kind of bastardization, isn't it? Real open-source -- not one where the backing company decides to make it a commercial tool next year.

RhodeCode CE (Community Edition) is free and open source, RhodeCode EE (Enterprise Edition) has a commercial license. From my point of view, the fact of having a commercial product is the best proof of long-term viability for an open source one.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.