Gogs: a self-hosted Git Service written in Go

by czsu69jj • 12 years ago

272 108 12 years ago

lukeholder2• 12 years ago

What i love about Go from a user of some of the open source apps like Gogs, is that its so easy to get the application running.

A single binary with zero dependancies is so awesome. With a ruby on rails app I need to worry about ruby version, ruby implementation, gem versions, compilation of C based gems, etc etc. With Go i simply copy up the binary and run it.

joe2010xtmf2• 12 years ago

Thanks for your words, we really appreciate!

lukeholder2• 12 years ago

Thanks for your work on Gogs! looks forward to seeing it grow. Would love to help out on the front end - let me know if you are needing any contributors.

shurcooL2• 12 years ago

I agree, that is one of my most favorite aspects of Go.

    go get -u github.com/go/project

If you're writing native Go code, it doesn't matter if there's 0 or 1000+ dependencies, that one command will take care of everything. So there's no need to fear having extra dependencies, and you are welcome to reuse more code.

Go takes the common parts of writing software and abstracts them away. Take any two distinct Go projects, and the only difference will be:

- Import Path

- Actual Code

Everything else works exactly the same no matter what project it is (assuming it follows idiomatic Go package conventions). Docs via godoc.org, standard testing, go vet, http://go-lint.appspot.com/, http://gocover.io/

No need to figure out how to install that particular project/library, how to get docs, how to run tests, etc.

swanson• 12 years ago

You mean like `bundle install` or `pip install -r requirements.txt` or `npm install package.json`? I mean, it's great that Go has something similar, but it's not like other languages are missing dependency managment...

girvo4• 12 years ago

Funnily, it's also why I sort of like Java web apps. Deploying a JAR or a WAR as a single file is pretty great.

kinofcain2• 12 years ago

Easier than some other languages, but you still need something to run what's in your jar. Being able to deploy executables eliminates a whole layer of dependencies, which ends up being really handy.

general_failure• 12 years ago

Agreed. Gitlab is awesome but very painful to setup

sytse9• 12 years ago

GitLab B.V. CEO here, have you tried our packages? With them you can now install GitLab in two minutes.

vectorpush• 12 years ago

Indeed. Gitlab is a similar software that I absolutely love, but the setup process is quite lengthy (though straightforward) and updating to new versions can be a considerable effort. I'll definitely be giving this a try, especially since the design is of a similar quality to gitlab.

geerlingguy2• 12 years ago

The new Omnibus installer (which is basically a nice wrapper around Chef) makes the install process much simpler, FYI; it was released sometime late in the 6.x era.

andmarios5• 12 years ago

To be fair (and I am a Go fan) it is the same with Java and Scala. That's the main reason I switched from gitlab to gitbucket. Also with Java and Scala you can have all the resources inside your jar file. With Go you need a directory structure to store your templates, CSS, etc.

The second reason I switched was RAM consumption and here Go shines compared to Java, although I'll have to let Gogs run for a few days to see what happens.

I gave it a spin and it looks nice. I can see migrating from gitbucket to gogs, mainly for being able to run it on a small VPS. One thing that I didn't like was that the source version can only run from the source code directory. If I copy public and templates directories it should run from anywhere.

mholt• 12 years ago

(Slight nit-pic: To run a jar file, you need the JRE installed, whereas a Go binary contains the runtime.)

But you're right about static resources, they need to be in a directory structure. Fortunately, zip files make them easy to distribute.

condiment• 12 years ago

I've been experimenting with it as well and it looks like you have to copy several directories to get it to work out of the box - templates, public, custom, log, and data.

But I'm inclined to agree that this is one area Go projects have a hard time with. The portability of the executable is great, but if you're doing anything that requires static assets, configuration, or data outside the context of the runtime, you can easily end up with a tough-to-manage mess of configuration.

What we've done for our internal Go projects is wrap them up with an .rpm installer that handles the creation of directories throughout the system, drops init scripts where they're appropriate, and sets up necessary cron jobs and logrotate rules. I don't think this is the best approach, but at the same time I'm not familiar with any good alternatives.

philsnow• 12 years ago

With Go you need a directory structure to store your templates, CSS, etc.

Is there anything stopping one from appending a zip archive to the go binary, and having the binary open the executable as a zip file to get at the static assets ?

kawera• 12 years ago

It is possible to pack static assets directly inside go binaries using statik[0] or rice[2]. I've been using then for small webapps and they both work very well.

[0] https://github.com/rakyll/statik

[1] https://github.com/GeertJohan/go.rice

pjmlp5• 12 years ago

A single binary with zero dependancies is so awesome.

You mean, like every single language out there with native code compilers?

A big generation gap must have happened, for static compilation to be touted as awesome feature.

justincormack2• 12 years ago

Glibc does not properly support static binaries, you need libc around even for static binaries mostly (eg dns resolution). Its annoying. You can make real static binaries with Musl libc though, or on the BSDs.

uniclaude• 12 years ago

It's not about what those languages allow, it's about how developers use them. You very rarely see C software distributed this way.

Go developers only distribute their open source software in a way that you only have to take the source, compile it, and run it, without having to worry about dependencies.

jingo• 12 years ago

This is why I prefer static binaries and preferably "crunched" binaries.

Same goes for the use of "read-only" mounts and "RAM disks" as opposed to dependence on other, less reliable media.

I hope your comment continues to be upvoted; usually I see downvotes at any mention of static linking. Why, I can never be sure. If static binaries make some power user's life easier why should anyone else care? With reasonably-sized, well-written programs (or the use of a system like Go's), compilation can be quite fast. And easy enough for anyone to do if and when libraries change.

syntern2• 12 years ago

That is a really cool project, and seems to be much easier to set up as any of the competitors (I'm looking at you, gitlab).

sytse9• 12 years ago

GitLab B.V. CEO here. We know that our manual installation is pretty involved (10 pages) so we recently made packages that you can install in 2 minutes.

syntern2• 12 years ago

Good to know, thanks for the update! I'll take a look on it soon.

geerlingguy2• 12 years ago

If you'd like to compare the GitLab and Gogs, I have a couple vagrant VMs you can clone and 'vagrant up' to kick the tires:

  - https://github.com/geerlingguy/ansible-vagrant-examples/tree/master/gitlab
  - https://github.com/geerlingguy/ansible-vagrant-examples/tree/master/gogs

Right now I still have a very basic git server for personal use with a bunch of bare repos and no UI, but I'm sorely tempted to start using Gogs or GitLab. GitLab wins for polish so far, but Gogs has caught up very quickly, and feels slightly faster.

girvo4• 12 years ago

GitLab is great, I've run it since version 3, but I am about to switch to Gogs. The reasoning is that GitLab is pretty painful to deploy, and frustrating to update to newer versions from older ones. Gogs seems a lot faster too, and it has every feature I need. GitLab comes into its own if you've got a large team however, but in that case I'd probably use Phabricator instead :)

IbJacked2• 12 years ago

Wow, I don't know how something like Phabricator slipped under may radar, that looks amazing. Many props to their copy writer(s), seemed every page was fun to read.

sytse9• 12 years ago

GitLab B.V. CEO here, thanks for using GitLab since version 3. We know that there have been some painful upgrades. Since we have packages the upgrades have been much easier. Please consider switching to a package install.

kinofcain2• 12 years ago

This is terrific. Other than the java implementation, is this the only alternate git implementation that doesn't use the core c git code under the hood? That's a pretty important accomplishment.

So many things you could build with a git-like data store...

kanatohodets• 12 years ago

Gogs uses a mix of GoGits, a partially Go implementation of git, and the traditional git binary via os/exec. A quick scan shows that it relies on the binary for perhaps the majority of tasks.

Another project I'm aware of that aims to re-implement git in go is https://github.com/kourge/ggit, which looks promising but has been slowing down, activity-wise.

procrastitron• 12 years ago

There's also dulwich, which is in Python: https://github.com/jelmer/dulwich

fanf2• 12 years ago

There is js-git: https://github.com/creationix/js-git

rakoo• 12 years ago

bup, the deduplicating backup software, uses the git pack format for storing its data (because the tree structure of git matches really well the tree structure of how bup operates). They have written their own implementation of pack writers and readers [0]; the writers are pure-git, the readers call the git binary.

[0] https://github.com/bup/bup/blob/master/lib/bup/git.py

hardwaresofton3• 12 years ago

As a person who recently discovered gitlab and has been trying to push it (make it popular at work, and possibly use it to replace github, and encourage people to use it), this is amazing.

Installing Gitlab was definitely one of the painpoints, having an executable that just works is amazing

What are people's thoughts on open software projects like this eating into github licensing money? I feel guilty sometimes pushing gitlab since I really like github as a company (and want them to thrive)

papaf• 12 years ago

I really like Github - they were a gamechanger. But now they are super successful to the point of creating monoculture in open source project hosting.

I switched to Fossil because of this monoculture. I am sure Github don't mind one less freeloader.

In terms of private repository hosting, I feel that some companies simply prefer self-hosted solutions no matter how good Github is.

notyourwork• 12 years ago

prefer

Not only prefer but sometimes its required based on compliance and regulations and such.

microtonal• 12 years ago

Installing Gitlab was definitely one of the painpoints, having an executable that just works is amazing

There were already other options that were very simple to install and upgrade, such as Gitblit and Gitbucket. At work we are using Gitblit. It provides all the functionality you'd expect, and one of the nice advantages is that it can store tickets in an orphan branch, so that you have these in git too.

hardwaresofton3• 12 years ago

I know this is silly and probably more than a little undeserved, but I stay away from java, JARs and WARs like the plague. I barely use Java for anything anymore, and I know 8 is great, but I'm just not comfortable running that/taking care of it.

I've actually rolled up my sleeves and written some login adapters (for internal use) in gitlab, and I'm much more comfortable writing ruby in rails than I would ever be writing Java. Again, this is probably a stupid opinion, but until I see the Java light, I don't think I'll be back to it.

Also, gitblit looks nowhere as good as gitlab (or even gitorious) does. Neither does gitbucket -- they don't have the polish that I see on other solutions... Yeah it's a really fickle point, but I want to reward groups that also prioritize design/visuals in their projects.

sytse9• 12 years ago

GitLab B.V. CEO here, thanks for promoting GitLab at work. I'm sorry to hear the installation was a painpoint. Have you tried our packages? It is a single file that installs in two minutes.

simme_• 12 years ago

I recently installed the CE package and it was a good experience overall. I had put it in a VM though, because it didn't like my postgresql installation ( https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt ).

hardwaresofton3• 12 years ago

Hey, thanks for responding!

I absolutely love the product. The install guide is fantastic, I don't know if that can be any better than it already is. The thing is, I'm a little paranoid about downloading & installing random binaries on our computers at work (I work in a very IP-sensitive company), so I generally go for source-builds.

I've actually been writing a fabric script to automate the entire install, believe it or not (the whole thing might be an exercise in futility, since people could just download the package), and I've installed gitlab enough times that I'm not really worried about it -- so at this point it's not a huge problem.

hueving2• 12 years ago

Github is a great example of a company that built closed source tools on top of open source ones and made money. They are not a non profit and aren't contributing a lot back to the tools they make money off of so it makes no sense to feel bad.

IbJacked2• 12 years ago

Looks great! Are there any plans to include per-repo wikis?

hliyan• 12 years ago

This is brilliant. Works beautifully. I only have very minor feedback:

1. The blue-on-red contrast is a bit hard on the eyes. Try a softer color palette?

2. Repository languages doesn't include Javascript?

3. Issue sorting and filtering might be important

Once again, kudos on a job well done!

SoapSticky• 12 years ago

This is just FANTASTIC

moepstar• 12 years ago

Ok, since my GitLab testinstall is hosed anyway...

How does this compare feature-wise to GitLab? How does this compare to GitLab regarding updates, i.e. how easy and seamless will update be and how often are they available?

Would be nice if someone could post some first-hand experience :)

zackify2• 12 years ago

This thing is fucking legit guys: "Admin password must contain at most 6 characters"

lauriswtf• 12 years ago

I hope that's a typo.

zackify2• 12 years ago

then it told me it must be at least six. I think its a bug when your password is too long.

snogglethorpe• 12 years ago

Well that way they can fit the password in a single 36-bit word.... ><

Nux2• 12 years ago

This is great. Till now we had GitBucket, GitBlit etc which are really fantastic, but they require a bit of resources.

If this can run ok on a modest VM then I think we got a winner!

Nux2• 12 years ago

Music to my ears! :-)

"System Requirements A cheap Raspberry Pi is powerful enough to match the minimal requirement. 4 CPU Cores and 1GB RAM would be the baseline for teamwork."

swah• 12 years ago

Does this implement a git engine like Gerrit? Its worth looking at their design - they can do so much cool stuff (like rejecting badly formatted commits) because they have their own server (IIRC).

Fastidious• 12 years ago

It uses Flash? Good looking application otherwise.

veeti• 12 years ago

Probably for instant copy buttons.

SPBesui• 12 years ago

It's for ZeroClipboard (http://zeroclipboard.org/), which is widely used (GitHub switched to it in early 2013). Unfortunately Flash is still the only reliable way to programmatically copy content to a user's clipboard in the browser.

maxcellent• 12 years ago

I wonder if federated login is already on roadmap.

Looks great! Good job!

donquichotte• 12 years ago

When considering a github-like service for my company, there were two main candidates, gogs and gitlab.

I favoured gogs because of the ease of deployment. What killed it was the fact that forking public repositories and creating pull requests is not implemented yet.

Since the ease of deployment for gitlab was drastically reduced lately, we settled for gitlab.

sytse9• 12 years ago

Do you mean that recently GitLab became much easier to install (because it has with the packages)

KaoruAoiShiho• 12 years ago

Can somebody make a git based wiki. PLEASE.

coned88• 12 years ago

How about gitit

https://github.com/jgm/gitit

It's actually pretty darn great.

_neil• 12 years ago

Like Gollum? https://github.com/gollum/gollum

_delirium2• 12 years ago

There's also ikiwiki: http://ikiwiki.info/

sytse9• 12 years ago

GitLab includes Gollom by default, it is great!

tempodox4• 12 years ago

Forget git, learn a usable SCM.

tempodox4• 12 years ago

Who uses git any more, anyway?

tempodox4• 12 years ago

No matter what I do, I never seem to come below -1 points for a comment. Isn't it un-hip enough to not be a git fan? What else do I have to do to really piss you off?

elementai2• 12 years ago

Tried to visit gogs demo page, but "502 Bad Gateway", so I'll stay with Gitlab for quite a while.

A lot of people mentioned that Gitlab installation is painful, but for me it was rather simple albeit a bit long. Probably the "IKEA effect" makes me love this awesome project even more.

Gogs: a self-hosted Git Service written in Go

Related Stories