My understanding of the frustration is Codeberg had over-invested in Woodpecker CI and so were blindsided by the appearance of Gitea Actions runner, that was de

My understanding of the frustration is Codeberg had over-invested in Woodpecker CI and so were blindsided by the appearance of Gitea Actions runner, that was developed by a core contributor, funded by an external party. In my mind, Forgejo's creation is an overreaction to basically this event. It's true that Gitea could have had more openness about such forthcoming development, and I think the new company structure for lunny + techknowlogick will really help them with this and being more professional. Gitea still has all the development resources and the vast bulk of all PRs. They're committed to MIT with no CLA, the lead developers are there, and that really matters. In comparison, Forgejo to this point has dragged its feet to rebase its few (~100) patches onto each new Gitea release. Most of the changes are simply rebranding, plus some new moderation tools for codeberg. Although codeberg don't even run forgejo directly but yet another downstream fork. So I think this hardfork will likely spell the end (or: rebirth) of forgejo. They haven't demonstrated much independent development so far. The worry about keeping some MIT independence is I think a sideshow, the latest Gitea is still MIT and with no CLA. So if forgejo may no longer be drop-in compatible, why would you switch to them? I wish Gitea and Codeberg could be better friends. Gitea has had amazing success this year with adoption by Blender and other large projects.