3 ms·
> Gogs author didn't want to incorporate proposed changes into Gogs, so a bunch of other developers forked Gogs This sounds like a reasonable way for forking t
by erikb 8y ago
> Gogs author didn't want to incorporate proposed changes into Gogs, so a bunch of other developers forked Gogs
This sounds like a reasonable way for forking though. I mean what is open source for if you can't go and and implement your own features if you so desire. Sounds to me like both sides are at fault.
- penagwin 8y agoI don't know enough of the details to really tell you, but it was more hostile then just that. I heard the maintainer went on hiatus and that's when they forked it - like there was some drama going on, it wasn't just a "I'd like to incorporate my changes here" and more of a "HEY LOOK THE DEV LEFT, WE'RE THE NEW GOGS" kinda thing. Check out some of the other comments in this thread, they explain it better.
- zaarn 8y agoThe problem was/is that on Gogs there is only one person with write access. When Unkwon goes AWOL or on vacation, it means nobody can fix urgend security fixes into master. In that case a community fork would be necessary everytime the main dev is not available but PRs require merging. I would gladly switch back once Gogs is no longer vulnerable to the Bus-Problem.