For years, the default workflow for shipping web apps has been simple: connect a GitHub repo, push code, and let a platform handle builds, deploys, TLS, and rollbacks. Tools like Vercel, Netlify, and Render made that experience mainstream.

The trade-off is that convenience can turn into dependency: rising bills, platform limits, compliance headaches, or the uneasy feeling that your delivery pipeline lives on someone else’s terms.

That’s the space /dev/push is trying to occupy: an open-source, self-hostable deployment platform designed to feel familiar to modern “push-to-deploy” workflows—while running on infrastructure you own.

What /dev/push is (in plain terms)

/dev/push is a self-hosted platform that connects to GitHub and automatically builds and deploys your applications when you push code. Under the hood, it relies on Docker-based deployments, so it can support many stacks—Python, Node.js, PHP, and more—so long as you can containerize them.

The goal is not to replace Kubernetes or become a full-blown internal platform engineering suite. It’s to provide a clean, product-like deployment experience—but on your own server.

Why it’s getting attention now

Self-hosted deployment platforms tend to pop up when teams hit one (or more) of these walls:

Cost predictability: “per-seat / per-build / per-GB” pricing can be hard to forecast at scale.
Compliance & data control: some organizations need clearer boundaries around where artifacts, logs, and infrastructure live.
Avoiding lock-in: using standard building blocks (Docker + GitHub webhooks) makes migration less painful.
Operational simplicity: some teams want a middle ground between “managed PaaS” and “build everything yourself.”

/dev/push sits right in that middle ground.

Key features that matter day-to-day

Git-based deployments (push to deploy)

You push to GitHub and /dev/push deploys automatically, with an emphasis on zero-downtime rollouts and fast rollback. That’s a big deal for small teams: you get safety nets without reinventing release engineering.

Multi-language support via Docker

It’s not “framework-specific.” If it runs in a container, it’s in play—useful for mixed environments where the frontend is JavaScript but internal services are Python or PHP.

Environment management that maps to how teams work

You can keep multiple environments (like staging and production), map them to branches, and manage environment variables (including encrypted secrets). This is the boring stuff that becomes painful when it’s missing.

Real-time logs and monitoring

Build logs and runtime logs are available live and searchable, which helps when something breaks at 18:30 and you just want answers fast.

Team collaboration (permissions & roles)

It includes role-based access control and team invites—important if you want the platform to be shared beyond “the one person who knows the server.”

Domains + automatic HTTPS

Custom domains with automatic Let’s Encrypt certificates are part of the experience. For many teams, this is the difference between “usable” and “too DIY.”

How it works under the hood

The core loop is:

You connect a GitHub repository.
GitHub sends webhooks on push events.
/dev/push builds and starts a new container for the selected environment.
If the new version is healthy, it replaces the old deployment.
If not, rollback becomes a practical option.

The important point: it’s not magic. It’s an opinionated workflow built on familiar primitives (Git + Docker + webhooks), wrapped in a developer-friendly product.

What you’ll need before installing

From the project’s own prerequisites, the typical setup looks like:

A Linux server (commonly Ubuntu/Debian) with SSH + sudo access
DNS control for your domains (Cloudflare is often recommended in the docs)
A GitHub account and a GitHub App for repo access + login
An email provider for auth/invitations (the docs mention Resend)

In other words: it’s self-hosted, but it’s not “zero external dependencies.” It still needs a few integrations to deliver a polished product experience.

The “common sense” operational checklist

Self-hosting is freedom—and responsibility. If you’re evaluating /dev/push seriously, treat it like production software:

Patch management: keep the OS and Docker stack updated.
Backups: back up configuration, data directories, and anything storing secrets/metadata.
Access control: lock down SSH, consider MFA where possible, and limit who can deploy production.
TLS/DNS hygiene: domain and certificate automation is great—until DNS is misconfigured and everything breaks at once.
Observability: logs are helpful; consider pairing with system-level monitoring for CPU, memory, disk, and network.
Resource limits: set sane defaults for CPU/RAM per deployment so one runaway build doesn’t starve the host.

This isn’t unique to /dev/push—it’s the reality of owning the platform layer.

Who /dev/push fits best

It’s most attractive for:

Teams that want a PaaS-like workflow without moving their delivery pipeline to a third-party platform
Small/medium orgs that want a single “deploy control panel” with logs, domains, roles, and environments
Agencies or internal teams managing multiple apps that are already Docker-friendly
Environments where “just use Vercel” isn’t an option due to compliance, procurement, or policy

It may be a weaker fit for:

Highly regulated environments that require deep integration with corporate IAM/SIEM processes
Complex service meshes, multi-region routing, or advanced orchestration needs (where Kubernetes or a mature platform stack is the right tool)

FAQs

Can /dev/push deploy Python, Node.js, and PHP apps?
Yes—its positioning is explicitly multi-language, as long as your app can run in Docker.

Is it a full replacement for Kubernetes?
Not really. Think of it more as a “self-hosted deployment platform” focused on a clean push-to-deploy workflow, not a general-purpose orchestrator.

Do I get staging + production environments?
That’s one of the core value points: multiple environments with branch mapping and environment-variable management.

Is “curl | bash” installation safe?
It can be convenient, but for any production use you should apply normal ops hygiene: review what you’re running, prefer pinned versions when possible, and test on a fresh server first.

What’s the biggest practical risk with self-hosting this kind of tool?
Not the tool itself—usually it’s operational drift: missing updates, weak access controls, no backups, or DNS/TLS misconfigurations. The platform layer is only as solid as the maintenance behind it.