It does already, but it's not yet properly documented. You can already run your own Gitea runner and point it at Pushin. I'll also add managed CI runner support based on Firecracker VMs soon. Currently, I use self-hosted runners for my CI, but the UI is a bit rough. I wanted to merge a PR today that fixes all that but then HN happened so just bear with me a little longer :)

No worries. You can also instead provide integration of third party CI. Thanks for letting me know.

I think you should be able to do that if you run your own Tangled knot. I'd assume that you can host it under your domain which means your git service will remain even if Tangled itself is down or goes under.

Thank you! I hope the key shortcuts help too! I took that inspiration from npmx.dev :)

That’s right. There are plenty of good options for OSS but few to none focused on both, public and private especially with team/enterprise support. That’s why I created Pushin :) simply to have a place to store both my public and private repos but still retain a community which you dont get on a self-hosted solution

yes

Yes.

I self-hosted Pushin on my own Forgejo instance on a Hetzner bare metal server before Pushin was ready and it was a great experience to be honest! Self-hosting Forgejo is great!

Thank you, but what? The name was meant like: `Push in (Europe)` hence, pushin.eu

I didn't get that either until I read this comment. I read "pushin" as one word, figured it was a made up proper name for a product.

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.

I read it as "push in you" and was confused

I read it, perhaps ironically, as colloquial/slang US English, like "lemme git to pushin' y'all!"

Yes, that's my test organization :)

Yes, we can't block models from scraping the public repos and train on them, but *we* won't use your code (neither public nor private) to train models on them. We really only want to host your code and do that well.

> we can't block models from scraping the public repos

FYI, there is the nuke option, which is generating endless nonsense pages as a form of “bot sink” [1] that ends the scraping relatively quickly, but IIRC that also tanks your search rankings, since it likely affects benign crawlers too – not something you’d necessarily want to happen to a new domain, unless you really need to protect server resources against aggressive hostile crawlers like SourceHut and so many others had to combat.

[1] https://www.toxsec.com/p/ai-tar-pits-are-drowning-llm-scrape...

Facepalm

LLMs are read only.

A developer would be the one using the LLM to evaluate page response text and scraping what they need.

LLMs cannot “crawl pages” or “scrape” or do anything - it’s an offline archive with a few convenience methods.

> LLMs cannot “crawl pages” or “scrape” or do anything - it’s an offline archive with a few convenience methods.

Being a bit needlessly pedantic here. I think it's well understood in these circles that such models are being driven by agents, which absolutely can crawl and scrape. The only thing a human needs to do is write rules for the agent to follow.

There is no "software" - that is a marketing term. It's bits and that's it.

Not how words work, try calling it bits in any setting where you mean software.

Wouldn’t matter in court anyway or anywhere you put it to the test even if you called it bits.

Point is dodging accountability by saying some “AI did it” when it’s not reflective of reality.

LLMs are read only and have no access to the internet :)