I was pondering the same thing.

Some good replies here:
https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@MikkoMononen/115011673258947287

I'm curious what you end up choosing.

@MikkoMononen @neilhenning starting to think it's a good time to make a "source hosting" startup, but with a focus on being able to store larger projects, which few of the existing options want to deal with at all. :')

@dotstdy @neilhenning I'm starting to wonder if source hosting is a startup kinda project at all. The 15yrs I've worked on open source stuff we've gone at least 3 rounds of enshitification (sourceforge, google code, github).

One reason I like (at least on paper) non-profits like codeberg is that their focus is not to grow, but to persist.

But... what you imply is kinda "project hosting", which could maybe work.

@MikkoMononen @neilhenning yeah, I wouldn't really want a startup either, I'd probably want to do something more communal and small. But you're right it's probably doomed anyway when the buyout money comes.

@dotstdy @MikkoMononen I think the worst bit of alternatives is you immediately lose discoverability. My open source libraries aren’t my job but I like that they aren’t just yeeted into the void and no one sees them.

@neilhenning @dotstdy That is my github use case too.

I think there's so many obvious things that github solved that it's going to be rough ride to migrate to something else.

@MikkoMononen @neilhenning I don't really have a good gauge for how much traffic is organic from GitHub itself, nor how difficult it'll be to move away from. I do remember those things going extremely fast in the past, when moving from say code project to sourceforge to github. But if the replacement is more of a disapora than A New One, then maybe it's less clear. I feel like that would actually be better in the long run, but it would certainly be a lot more bumpy along the way.