6 ms·

For info: there was some drama a while back [0], [1] and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/ https://forgejo.org/ Seemed to me lik

For info: there was some drama a while back [0], [1] and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/ https://forgejo.org/ Seemed to me like they had a point and it's worth considering following that project [2] instead. [0] https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/ https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33372471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33372471 [2] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo

candiddevmike 4y ago
Will be interesting to compare the velocity between the two. Can a community fork keep pace and possibly even innovate more than the commercial upstream? There have been a few cases of open source collectives/coops that do what Gitea does but distribute the profits to contributors equally, wonder if any of those have reached sustainability.
gempir 4y ago
The issue is Forgejo doesn't really have the know-how or capabilities to drive this project forward. In the past months all they have done is rebrand Gitea and some minor fixes, but upstream (gitea) has added a huge number of features and merged tons of valuable pull requests. So are they just going to continuously merge upstream into their fork and do nothing besides that? The platform, Codeberg might be "well" funded but not to maintain another extra project and develop new features for it. I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some money on the side with that. Compare these merged PRs: Forgejo https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=recentupdate&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=0 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=... Gitea https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+sort%3Aupdated-desc https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclose...
- tjoff 4y ago
  > I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some money on the side with that. That seems completely irrelevant and orthogonal to the outrage though?
jolheiser 4y ago
I'm one of the community members on the Gitea TOC. Just to clarify, only one maintainer left the project to my knowledge, although a few other contributors did as well. The majority of us remained with the Gitea project.
RealStickman_ 4y ago
From what I, as an outsider, could see, it seemed like most contributors stayed with gitea. At this point forgejo is just a soft-fork as well, so there really isn't any reason or hurry to switch (yet) in my opinion. Though it did stand out that they are migrating stuff from gitea.io to gitea.com, as mentioned in this blog post.
- jolheiser 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, why did that stand out? We've had the .com domain for a little while, so now we're starting to consolidate things to it.
  - RealStickman_ 4y ago
    Honestly, it's a stupid response from me, but it did feel like a reminder of the recent changes.
    - techknowlogick 4y ago
      No worries, that's totally understandable. The change was made mostly for practical reasons, to be able to upgrade infrastructure piece by piece. So both new and old infra could run at the same time while it was switched. I'm actually writing a blog post detailing the history of our infra, but the TLDR is that too much money and person effort was being spent on managing the infra. Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea.
mariusmg 4y ago
>and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/ https://forgejo.org/ The Forjero commits prove that this is incorrect (they are still busy removing Gitea branding related things from their code). It's going to take a long time until they begin to match the Gitea momentum.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > It's going to take a long time until they begin to match the Gitea momentum. I'd hope so! I am not interested in many of the features being added to Gitea (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1]). I want a light binary I can continue to self-host on a Raspberry Pi Zero that doesn't have Docker installed. 1. I feel Gitea is being positioned as a competitor to GitHub and GitLab - good for them! However, the previous iteration was close to perfect for my needs, albeit not very monetizable. I'm glad it got forked and will be side-grading to Forgejo.
  - joencott 4y ago
    > (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1]) The momentum stalled when the community was plagued recently by toxic behaviour of one of the members who started the fork. He had to step down from the "well-being" team[1], bullied a moderation team member into stepping down[2] and forced him to disclose information from a private chat[3]. Now he is trying to "reboot" the community to erase his previous bad behaviour [4] Forgejo members are also unhappy about conflicts of interest of this individual [5] The Forgejo community is stronger than this one individual, so it will succeed. [1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f793720232ceb3caccc4ca6483aa44 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f79372023... [2]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-821207 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82... [3]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-821309 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82... [4]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187 [5]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-843382 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-843...
    - 4y ago
djha-skin 4y ago
It's a soft fork though, so the Forgejo folks are still relying on the Gitea team for features like this. The Forgejo folks seem to object to Gitea on the basis that a company took the project over. I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical. I'll be sticking with Gitea for the foreseeable future. 1: https://codeberg.org/ https://codeberg.org/
- jszymborski 4y ago
  I think the concern was of corporate exploitation in the name of profits, in which case I don't think forking and having a non-profit at the helm hypocritical. It's actually a very defensive position to prevent corporate interests from snatching up the project once more.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical. Straining to assume good faith here but this seems very likely to be wilful misinfo - particularly given the emphasis. The reasons for the fork are very clearly stated in the lettter linked in the comment you're replying to: it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation). It's also about profit: the US corp is for-profit. Secondly, not only are Codeberg a non-profit, they also adopted the project after the fork. That wasn't a part of the original letter nor discussion. They don't control the project (see aforementioned objections on the basis of democratic input) - they're a host & benefactor.
  - jolheiser 4y ago
    > it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation) A quick clarification here, the new TOC is comprised of three company members and three community members, with community members having a slight advantage should there be a split vote on anything.
dboreham 4y ago
Quick note that the forked project doesn't have the CI feature released in 1.9, which is the primary subject of this thread.
- dave78 4y ago
  I assume they will follow up with their own 1.19 release soon. The blog below indicates they will have the CI feature. https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/ https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/
  - joencott 4y ago
    It is sad to see that the forgejo team accept and promote the built-in CI server. When the PR was first made they said they shouldn't trust the code, and will stick with woodpecker.
  - remram 4y ago
    It seems that they have "soft forked" act as well. I worry that they will spend more time maintaining all their forks than doing any original development...
    - dave78 4y ago
      Gitea soft forked act as well, from https://gitea.com/gitea/act https://gitea.com/gitea/act: "This is a custom fork of nektos/act, for the purpose of serving act_runner. It cannot be used as command line tool anymore, but only as a library. It's a soft fork, which means that it will tracking the latest release of nektos/act."
      - remram 4y ago
        I see, removed that from my comment then, sorry. I looked at their go.mod and assumed. Now I worry even more about everyone maintaining forks of everything rather than doing original development. I wonder what differences there are between Gitea's and Forgejo's forks, and also why they couldn't work with upstream.
remram 4y ago
The problem is that at this point they are just re-publishing the Gitea releases with a different name and branding. I'm all for forks when they become necessary, but is there anything there yet?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

candiddevmike 4y ago

Will be interesting to compare the velocity between the two. Can a community fork keep pace and possibly even innovate more than the commercial upstream? There have been a few cases of open source collectives/coops that do what Gitea does but distribute the profits to contributors equally, wonder if any of those have reached sustainability.

gempir 4y ago

The issue is Forgejo doesn't really have the know-how or capabilities to drive this project forward. In the past months all they have done is rebrand Gitea and some minor fixes, but upstream (gitea) has added a huge number of features and merged tons of valuable pull requests. So are they just going to continuously merge upstream into their fork and do nothing besides that? The platform, Codeberg might be "well" funded but not to maintain another extra project and develop new features for it. I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some money on the side with that. Compare these merged PRs: Forgejo https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=recentupdate&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=0 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=... Gitea https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+sort%3Aupdated-desc https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclose...

tjoff 4y ago
> I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some money on the side with that. That seems completely irrelevant and orthogonal to the outrage though?

jolheiser 4y ago

I'm one of the community members on the Gitea TOC. Just to clarify, only one maintainer left the project to my knowledge, although a few other contributors did as well. The majority of us remained with the Gitea project.

RealStickman_ 4y ago

From what I, as an outsider, could see, it seemed like most contributors stayed with gitea. At this point forgejo is just a soft-fork as well, so there really isn't any reason or hurry to switch (yet) in my opinion. Though it did stand out that they are migrating stuff from gitea.io to gitea.com, as mentioned in this blog post.

jolheiser 4y ago
Out of curiosity, why did that stand out? We've had the .com domain for a little while, so now we're starting to consolidate things to it.
- RealStickman_ 4y ago
  Honestly, it's a stupid response from me, but it did feel like a reminder of the recent changes.
  - techknowlogick 4y ago
    No worries, that's totally understandable. The change was made mostly for practical reasons, to be able to upgrade infrastructure piece by piece. So both new and old infra could run at the same time while it was switched. I'm actually writing a blog post detailing the history of our infra, but the TLDR is that too much money and person effort was being spent on managing the infra. Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea.

mariusmg 4y ago

>and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/ https://forgejo.org/ The Forjero commits prove that this is incorrect (they are still busy removing Gitea branding related things from their code). It's going to take a long time until they begin to match the Gitea momentum.

sangnoir 4y ago
> It's going to take a long time until they begin to match the Gitea momentum. I'd hope so! I am not interested in many of the features being added to Gitea (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1]). I want a light binary I can continue to self-host on a Raspberry Pi Zero that doesn't have Docker installed. 1. I feel Gitea is being positioned as a competitor to GitHub and GitLab - good for them! However, the previous iteration was close to perfect for my needs, albeit not very monetizable. I'm glad it got forked and will be side-grading to Forgejo.
- joencott 4y ago
  > (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1]) The momentum stalled when the community was plagued recently by toxic behaviour of one of the members who started the fork. He had to step down from the "well-being" team[1], bullied a moderation team member into stepping down[2] and forced him to disclose information from a private chat[3]. Now he is trying to "reboot" the community to erase his previous bad behaviour [4] Forgejo members are also unhappy about conflicts of interest of this individual [5] The Forgejo community is stronger than this one individual, so it will succeed. [1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f793720232ceb3caccc4ca6483aa44 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f79372023... [2]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-821207 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82... [3]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-821309 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82... [4]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187 [5]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-843382 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-843...
  - 4y ago

djha-skin 4y ago

It's a soft fork though, so the Forgejo folks are still relying on the Gitea team for features like this. The Forgejo folks seem to object to Gitea on the basis that a company took the project over. I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical. I'll be sticking with Gitea for the foreseeable future. 1: https://codeberg.org/ https://codeberg.org/

jszymborski 4y ago
I think the concern was of corporate exploitation in the name of profits, in which case I don't think forking and having a non-profit at the helm hypocritical. It's actually a very defensive position to prevent corporate interests from snatching up the project once more.
lucideer 4y ago
> I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical. Straining to assume good faith here but this seems very likely to be wilful misinfo - particularly given the emphasis. The reasons for the fork are very clearly stated in the lettter linked in the comment you're replying to: it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation). It's also about profit: the US corp is for-profit. Secondly, not only are Codeberg a non-profit, they also adopted the project after the fork. That wasn't a part of the original letter nor discussion. They don't control the project (see aforementioned objections on the basis of democratic input) - they're a host & benefactor.
- jolheiser 4y ago
  > it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation) A quick clarification here, the new TOC is comprised of three company members and three community members, with community members having a slight advantage should there be a split vote on anything.

dboreham 4y ago

Quick note that the forked project doesn't have the CI feature released in 1.9, which is the primary subject of this thread.

dave78 4y ago
I assume they will follow up with their own 1.19 release soon. The blog below indicates they will have the CI feature. https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/ https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/
- joencott 4y ago
  It is sad to see that the forgejo team accept and promote the built-in CI server. When the PR was first made they said they shouldn't trust the code, and will stick with woodpecker.
- remram 4y ago
  It seems that they have "soft forked" act as well. I worry that they will spend more time maintaining all their forks than doing any original development...
  - dave78 4y ago
    Gitea soft forked act as well, from https://gitea.com/gitea/act https://gitea.com/gitea/act: "This is a custom fork of nektos/act, for the purpose of serving act_runner. It cannot be used as command line tool anymore, but only as a library. It's a soft fork, which means that it will tracking the latest release of nektos/act."
    - remram 4y ago
      I see, removed that from my comment then, sorry. I looked at their go.mod and assumed. Now I worry even more about everyone maintaining forks of everything rather than doing original development. I wonder what differences there are between Gitea's and Forgejo's forks, and also why they couldn't work with upstream.

remram 4y ago

The problem is that at this point they are just re-publishing the Gitea releases with a different name and branding. I'm all for forks when they become necessary, but is there anything there yet?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]