Archived
✨ Feature Suggestion | Gitlab mirroring #742
Closed
opened 2019-01-26 02:39:07 +00:00 by pdjpdjpdj
·
13 comments
No Branch/Tag Specified
master
dependabot/bundler/nokogiri-1.13.6
dependabot/bundler/addressable-2.8.0
freddy-m-patch-3
pr-add_RemoveMyPhone_sponsor
pr-browser_cleanup_1257_1328_1430
freddy-m-patch-2
freddy-m-patch-1
pr-vpn_hated_one_video
cdn
update-nitrohorse-image
promote-metager-to-card
hardware
pr-add_azirevpn
pr-add_mailfence
shop
1673
pr/1658
i18n-simple
sponsorship-edits-nov2019
i18n
ipfs
blacklight447-ptio-patch-3
blog
remove-windows-icons
pr/1147
i18n-testing
add-beautify
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
:mag:🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
approved, waiting for a PR
Pull requests that update a dependency file
The Invisible Internet Project (I2P)
Operating Systems
A label for stalebot if it gets added
Anything related to media streaming.
Anything covering the Tor network
active work in progress, do not merge or PR (yet)!
Issues or bugs that will not be fixed and/or do not have significant impact on the project.
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
Matrix protocol
Browser Extension related issues
Correction of content on the website
Firefox & forks, about:config etc.
Anything primarily related to site cleanup.
Virtual Private Network
*Technical* issues with the website.
Domain Name System
Anything covering a translated version of the site
No labels
✨ enhancement
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#742
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Description:
In these days and certainly for this project certainly a backup on another public git repository hoster is imho recommended. I was thinking of GitLab using anyone experience with it?
Anyone know whether you can configure git hooks to do just that? Mirror the repository/issues to e.g. gitlab?
If a GitLab mirror is set up, it should be read only with a link to the main repo. We don't want people opening issues/PRs on GL.
Problems with Gitlab.com service:
@spamgourmet.comforwarding email address to track spam and to protect their more sensitive internal email address.Regarding the last item, I was simply trying to edit an existing message that I already posted and was forced to solve a Google reCAPTCHA (attached). There are several problems with this:
I was denied collaboration with a Gitlab project because Google (a PRISM privacy abuser) was given the power to decide whether I could participate. The CAPTCHA was broken so I was blocked.
Google should not have power over a project whose purpose is privacy advocacy.
We’re going to have a public GitLab instance installed in the next few days, and we will have a read-only mirror of this organization and repo on it. It will not replace GitHub at this time.
That's a good direction to go in. Will be interesting to see if it can be configured in a way that avoids the shortcomings of the gitlab.com service. (edit: other Gitlab instances like code.briarproject.org are CAPTCHA-encumbered)
Will the general public be able to register and create repositories?
Yes that's going to be the main intent of the service, us having a mirror on the site is just an added bonus.
Mirroring is a good idea – one never knows when a DCMA (right or wrong) strikes, the hoster's business makes bad decisions, etc. But for privacy reasons: why need it be GitLab? Codeberg would be the much more logic choice for a privacy oriented F/L OSS project. Setup a mirror now (I already did so for my "core projects"), and even consider turning the direction once Codeberg has full support for migrating issues and merge requests along, making Codeberg your new home and, for backup purposes, mirror back here 😃
@IzzySoft
There are clearly privacy abuses with Gitlab as a centralized service, but I've not heard of any privacy issues with self-hosting using Gitlab software. Can you elaborate?
If self-hosting, Gitea is apparently what Codeberg uses. Is that what you would favor over Gitlab software? Since other self-hosted Gitlab projects have the usability broken due to CAPTCHA issue, it looks like gitea or gogs would be favorable.
I selfhost Gitea on a Pi (for my local stuff, and as mirror for what I have publically at e.g. Github/GitLab). Startup time for Gitea on that Pi is less than a second. Ever tried that with GitLab? 🤣
For self-hosting, the software you use must cover your requirements. If you need extensive CI support, GitLab might be a good choice. If you can do completely without, it might be overkill. Plus the captcha thingy.
So yes, I'd favor Gitea. And unless you're in "providing privacy related software/hosting services" anyway already, I'd go with Codeberg. Do what you do best and don't get distracted 😉
chat.privacytools.iosocial.privacytools.iowrite.privacytools.iosearch.privacytools.iobin.privacytools.ioAnd now,
git.privacytools.io😉This repo is now mirrored at https://git.privacytools.io/privacytoolsIO/privacytools
Yeah, should have checked with your site first 🤣
Speaking of which: The Facebook-Share-Thingy looks a bit strange on a site promoting privacy. I'd rather remove that ("against global mass surveillance", as the subject of the mail link states). Privacy and Facebook are contradicting terms: Who's on Facebook doesn't take privacy seriously (enough) – and who takes privacy seriously isn't on Facebook. A privacy promoting site shouldn't link there (and no, "everybody does" and "many people are there" doesn't really count 😉).
"Well, FB can't be that bad if even privacytools.io links to/promotes it…" (yes, that sharing button can be seen as "promotion")
@IzzySoft
See #868
@libBletchley why is it that always if I mention something, you just have opened a matching issue a few hours ago? 🤣 Thanks, left my 2 cents there.