[yjftsjthsd-h]

> It allows us to easily host an infinite number of repositories

I like this system in general, but I don't understand why scaling the number of repos is treated as a pinch point? Are there git hosts that struggle with the number of repos hosted in particular? (I don't think the "Motivation" section answers this, either.)

[icambron]

Seems like it enables you do things like use git repos as per-customer or per-some-business-object storage, which you otherwise wouldn't even consider. Like imagine you were setting up a blogging site where each blog was backed by a repo

[beachy]

Or perhaps a SaaS product where individual customers had their own fork of the code.

There are many reasons not to do this, perhaps this scratches away at one of them.

[_qrpb]

OP here.

It’s unlikely any Git providers struggle with the number of repos they're hosting, but most are larger companies.

Currently, we're a bootstrapped team of 2. I think our approach changes the kind of product we can build as a small team.

[rad_gruchalski]

How? What makes it so much more powerful than gitea hosted on a cheap vps with some backup in s3?

Unless, of course, your product is infinite git repos with cf workers.

[bhl]

Serverless git repos would be useful if you wanted to make a product like real-time collaboration + offline support code editing in the browser.

You can still sync to a platform like GitHub or BitBucket after all users close their tabs.

A long time ago, I looked into using isomorphic-git with lightning-fs to build light note-taking app in the browser: pull your markdown files in, edit them in a rich-text-editor a la Notion, stage and then commit changes back using git.

[aphantastic]

That’s essentially what github.dev and vscode.dev do FWIW.