178
Github confirms random 401 responses on unauthenticated git clones are no mistake (eviltoast.org)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Since yesterday a lot of users in Europe found their workflows failing due to Github seemingly randomly throwing HTTP/401 on git clone/git pull when interacting with public repos without authentication.

It was now confirmed by staff member that this indeed is intentional and no further steps are planned at this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 60 points 4 days ago (1 child)

Public GitHub repositories remain public and can still be accessed without a GitHub account, including repositories owned by paying customers. However, a subset of unauthenticated clone or fetch requests may now be asked to authenticate as part of GitHub’s protections against abusive traffic. If you receive a 401, update your application or script to use GitHub credentials.

Uh okay.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I wonder why people still keep up with this bullshit and not switch to some better public Git hosting provider.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    Can you help me find a solution that:

    1. I don’t have to self host
    2. Provides SSO
    3. Provides local and remote build agents and actions
    4. Allows me to store private proprietary code
    5. Supports static IPs for runners

    Number 4 rules out Codeberg. The only other one that really supports that level is Azure DevOps, and well….

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 9 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    Could you suggest an alternative?

    I know Codeberg exists, but they had reliability problems recently IIRC?

    sr.ht and Gitlab are paid products.

    Technically one can self-host a forge, but my attempts at setting up CI were unsuccessful (IMO that's way more complicated that setting up the forge itself).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Codeberg's couldn't be much worse than github's reliability since 2019

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    Codeberg only targets a subset of projects. For example, I no longer want most of my self-written code to be publicly available, but Codeberg only supports public repos.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Codeberg allows private repositories: https://docs.codeberg.org/collaborating/repo-permissions/

    If you do not want anyone (apart from your fellow collaborators) to see your repositories, mark your repository as "Private".

    https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/first-repository/

    Repositories are either public or private, where public means that everyone will be able to access your repository, while your private repositories can only be accessed by you and your collaborators (see Invite Collaborators).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

    The problem with Codeberg now is that there is a spectrum of AI usage between manually coding and AI slop that Codeberg chooses to ignore with their new policy.

    I get it that's their platform and their choice, and at some point I even looked for ways to support them financially if that meant I could migrate all my repos from GitHub - I wouldn't mind paying for my use, "vibe coded" or not - but an intransigent LLM ban creates uncertainty for many of my active projects, and I can't consider them a viable alternative to GitHub anymore.

    So sure, I'll take 3h of GH actions downtime a month over a platform ban. I'm sure I'm not alone there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    So, you should be fine with the measures against scraping, then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    That doesn't affect me, but you can't eat your cake and have it too. I'd rather have open source content actually open and easy to access, but GitHub has an availability issue and they're trying to address it, so I don't see this as a hostile move.

    I'm sure if codeberg was nearly as popular as github, they'd be forced to restrict some clones too. Their current load is unprecedented, even for their standards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    you can self host gitlab too, and its free. yes, you CAN buy a license, but you can run it free forever. you can also use their SaaS free forever too.

    at least right now, I think it's the best alternative, though I completely understand people wanting to favor OSS.

    disclaimer: I have contributed code to gitlab, but I am NOT an employee.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Their SaaS is pretty good but of course you are running the same chain trust. You're betting that gitlab doesn't enshittify within the next 5 years which is hardly a guarantee.

    Self-hosting gitlab is very resource-intense and complex from what I tried, though I did only try it two or three times.

    I did set up forgejo which was way easier and less heavy but I haven't tested it much so who knows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    I hosted GitLab Community Edition on-prem as a trial for a very small team, but switched to a Microsoft offering. Part of it was it being demanding, part of it was not. The point is you can host CE yourself and get an experience that’s very similar to their service, “for free,” where “free” translates to your hardware requirements and responsibility. I’d even say it’s worth it to go with GitLab, in that context, for the familiarity you can provide your team. “You’ll have to learn gitonator9000” turns into “you’ve used GitLab, right?”

    Personal use? You could run it in a container and periodically backup your data. Is it proportionally more demanding than other things? Probably.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    Yes, they had reliability problems because so many fucking people are suddenly switching to them because they're so much better overall and not evil. Those are the kind of reliability problems that it is genuinely nice to see someone having. Having a little bit of a bumpy road when scaling due to significant rapid adoption is normal. So what?

    Imagine not wanting to use Linux because it recently had a bunch of security flaws. And it did. But again, so what? Does that mean Linux has always been insecure? Well for those things it was. But is it still insecure? Maybe, who knows, nothing is perfect. Are you going to refuse to use it because you're not sure? Why? Past performance is not an indicator of future success.

    If some minor reliability issues are your foremost concern to the point that the other things codeberg provides for free are not valuable to you because of it, I question the depth of your priorities.

    That said, it is much healthier and better for people to self-host or use smaller less centralized providers if possible. I do not wish Codeberg to become a victim of their own success, and a healthy ecosystem is a diverse one. But it is not for everyone, and if all you need is a minimal fuss alternative to Github, Codeberg is right there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent