4 ms·

Gitea 1.22 is the last version to allow a transparent ugprade to Forgejo

37 points by CuriousIndian 2y ago

sclu1034 2y ago
Guess it's finally time to close my single PR for Gitea that has been stuck in limbo for almost two years now and move it to Forgejo for good. It felt alright to keep it open when there was still a chance for it to benefit both projects, but now that that's gone, I see no reason to keep putting up with months of silence and accumulating conflicts between review comments.
- remram 2y ago
  This appears to be the PR: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/23851 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/23851 Pretty big gap in the "packages" feature.
remram 2y ago
What are the functional differences between Gitea and Forgejo? Ones that would help an end-user like me pick? This article makes it clear that I have to pick, but gives no clue as to how I would do that. I have found https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/ https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/ but there again, it's all about the governance and the development process. The federation is a concrete feature I guess, but it's not there yet for either Gitea or Forgejo.
- mappu 2y ago
  Forgejo is an ideological fork (not a bad thing) that has chosen to rule out staying abreast of the significantly higher rate of development happening upstream. Consider it to be like Pale Moon instead of Firefox. Gitea has a great active community and remains MIT license with no CLA.
  - remram 2y ago
    Yes I know that, this is on every page. The functional differences are not, that's why I am asking about those.
    - mappu 2y ago
      I can't say what Forgejo has over Gitea, but I can tell you Forgejo is missing everything from the 888 merged PRs in Gitea 1.23: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.23.0-rc0 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.23.0-rc0 Repo license support, integrated Arch package repository, automatic issue suggestions, and the new review+homepage UIs would be notable ones for me.
vetrom 2y ago
re my commentary nine months ago: I thought Gitea was fairly safe, as they were not requiring a CLA. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680587) They still seem to only require a DCO, so I don't think they're gearing up for a commercialization rugpull... yet? Some of the forgejo devs apparently believe that a collective copyright header is the same thing as a copyright assignment: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27455 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27455 & https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/67 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/67 I disagree on that point personally, but is there precedent here anywhere in the world? Now that forgejo is not hard-tracking the gitea source, maybe we'll see in a year or two which project has better technical velocity or whatnot. IMO it's a coin toss between the two at this juncture.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
  >I don't think they're gearing up for a commercialization rugpull... yet? What would even be the point of a closed source github clone? Why would anyone chose Gitea of github in that case?
  - doubled112 2y ago
    GitLab is only open core, and people choose it.
  - vetrom 2y ago
    youll find plenty of reasons and justifications in the wider world of industries software engineering touches. Look at butbucket, microsoft (sourcesafe and then they bought out all of github), perforce, rational, bitkeeper, etc. All it really takes is some investor pressure or a bright idea that they could chase some large enterprise sales money, and then youll see more optimizations in that direction. Sometimes they're useful, like in cases where theres features that are important and even critical for medium-large enterprise usecases, but most people find boring to develop for. The risk comes, IMO, if you dilute the core product value while chasing those objectives.
- mappu 2y ago
aitchnyu 2y ago
Tangential, did AI devs take a stab at maintaining a soft fork from a diverged codebase?
riperoni 2y ago
The spirit of forgejo is great, but the whole CI component of both Gitea, forgejo und Github is absolute garbage. Just compare it to GitLab and it becomes clear. Why the hell are Actions and 20GB "containers" used? It all makes simple command line installs in a container so hard to do. Actions overcomplicate simple stuff like git clone by burying it in mountains of TyseScript to the point of no recognizability or transparency. And having an external dependency on someone others otherworldly wrapped shell script. A singe-purpose container does not exist in that type of world which utterly defeats the whole point of using containers. Is there a similar CI implementation to GitLab out there?
- remram 2y ago
  I still use Drone with Gitea and it works great. I wrote a little adapter [1] so it can run VMs with Qemu, in case I need to build untrusted code (or on a different OS). I don't know why they picked the GitHub thing for their CI. [1]: https://github.com/remram44/drone-runner-qemu https://github.com/remram44/drone-runner-qemu
  - riperoni 2y ago
    Interesting, thank you!

37 points by CuriousIndian 2y ago

Guess it's finally time to close my single PR for Gitea that has been stuck in limbo for almost two years now and move it to Forgejo for good. It felt alright to keep it open when there was still a chance for it to benefit both projects, but now that that's gone, I see no reason to keep putting up with months of silence and accumulating conflicts between review comments.

remram 2y ago
This appears to be the PR: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/23851 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/23851 Pretty big gap in the "packages" feature.

remram 2y ago

What are the functional differences between Gitea and Forgejo? Ones that would help an end-user like me pick? This article makes it clear that I have to pick, but gives no clue as to how I would do that. I have found https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/ https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/ but there again, it's all about the governance and the development process. The federation is a concrete feature I guess, but it's not there yet for either Gitea or Forgejo.

mappu 2y ago
Forgejo is an ideological fork (not a bad thing) that has chosen to rule out staying abreast of the significantly higher rate of development happening upstream. Consider it to be like Pale Moon instead of Firefox. Gitea has a great active community and remains MIT license with no CLA.
- remram 2y ago
  Yes I know that, this is on every page. The functional differences are not, that's why I am asking about those.
  - mappu 2y ago
    I can't say what Forgejo has over Gitea, but I can tell you Forgejo is missing everything from the 888 merged PRs in Gitea 1.23: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.23.0-rc0 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.23.0-rc0 Repo license support, integrated Arch package repository, automatic issue suggestions, and the new review+homepage UIs would be notable ones for me.

vetrom 2y ago

re my commentary nine months ago: I thought Gitea was fairly safe, as they were not requiring a CLA. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680587) They still seem to only require a DCO, so I don't think they're gearing up for a commercialization rugpull... yet? Some of the forgejo devs apparently believe that a collective copyright header is the same thing as a copyright assignment: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27455 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27455 & https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/67 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/67 I disagree on that point personally, but is there precedent here anywhere in the world? Now that forgejo is not hard-tracking the gitea source, maybe we'll see in a year or two which project has better technical velocity or whatnot. IMO it's a coin toss between the two at this juncture.

fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
>I don't think they're gearing up for a commercialization rugpull... yet? What would even be the point of a closed source github clone? Why would anyone chose Gitea of github in that case?
- doubled112 2y ago
  GitLab is only open core, and people choose it.
- vetrom 2y ago
  youll find plenty of reasons and justifications in the wider world of industries software engineering touches. Look at butbucket, microsoft (sourcesafe and then they bought out all of github), perforce, rational, bitkeeper, etc. All it really takes is some investor pressure or a bright idea that they could chase some large enterprise sales money, and then youll see more optimizations in that direction. Sometimes they're useful, like in cases where theres features that are important and even critical for medium-large enterprise usecases, but most people find boring to develop for. The risk comes, IMO, if you dilute the core product value while chasing those objectives.
mappu 2y ago

aitchnyu 2y ago

Tangential, did AI devs take a stab at maintaining a soft fork from a diverged codebase?

riperoni 2y ago

The spirit of forgejo is great, but the whole CI component of both Gitea, forgejo und Github is absolute garbage. Just compare it to GitLab and it becomes clear. Why the hell are Actions and 20GB "containers" used? It all makes simple command line installs in a container so hard to do. Actions overcomplicate simple stuff like git clone by burying it in mountains of TyseScript to the point of no recognizability or transparency. And having an external dependency on someone others otherworldly wrapped shell script. A singe-purpose container does not exist in that type of world which utterly defeats the whole point of using containers. Is there a similar CI implementation to GitLab out there?

remram 2y ago
I still use Drone with Gitea and it works great. I wrote a little adapter [1] so it can run VMs with Qemu, in case I need to build untrusted code (or on a different OS). I don't know why they picked the GitHub thing for their CI. [1]: https://github.com/remram44/drone-runner-qemu https://github.com/remram44/drone-runner-qemu
- riperoni 2y ago
  Interesting, thank you!