4 ms·

I'm finding out about Forgejo (and their reasons for forking Gitea) right now for the first time. I already migrated my Gogs install to Gitea, and now I have to

by bhaney 1y ago

I'm finding out about Forgejo (and their reasons for forking Gitea) right now for the first time. I already migrated my Gogs install to Gitea, and now I have to migrate Gitea to Forgejo? This shit is why people just stay on Github.

bigfishrunning 1y ago
Why would you have to migrate? If you're happy with Gitea just stay there.
- bhaney 1y ago
  According to Forgejo[1], Gitea underwent a secret hostile takeover by a for-profit company and has been moving from free software to "open core" bullshit. The reason that I, and I assume a lot of other people, made an effort to switch from Github to Gogs/Gitea was to evade the for-profit corpo nonfree crap. The more I'm looking into it, the more it looks like the real development is happening on Forgejo too. [1] https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/#why-was-forgejo-created https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/#why-was-forgejo-create...
  - homebrewer 1y ago
    Yeah, it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon, and from where they continue to draw most of their functionality. Gitea is ahead on that despite patches flowing one way only. If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of activity you see. About half of the rest are cherry-picks from the Gitea repo. Look instead at the amount of features introduced with each version. Forgejo releases twice as often as Gitea does, so compare two releases of Forgejo with one release of Gitea made within the same time frame. I haven't been impressed so far. Also a bit more context: https://lwn.net/Articles/963608 https://lwn.net/Articles/963608
    - rowanG077 1y ago
      I don't think they are saying nasty things about the project they were born out of. They are saying nasty things about the corporate takeover.
    - bhaney 1y ago
      > it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon I'm not sure why that would make them hard to take seriously unless the things they're saying are false. Is that what you're claiming? > If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of activity you see If I thought number of commits strictly equals activity then I guess it would look like that, but I don't. From what I'm seeing, a lot of the Gitea devs left to go to Forgejo and are now working on it exclusively, while the work being done on Gitea gets selectively merged into Forgejo too. I don't actually care about that either - Gogs had all the features I wanted when I first installed it years ago and all I really want out of the maintainers is security patches. I'm mostly just concerned about licensing and ownership models that incentivize the software org to inevitably turn evil in the future.
      - homebrewer 1y ago
        None of the really heavy hitters from the "core team" have left. As long as 100% FOSS Gitea pulls ahead in functionality, and can be downgraded relatively easily with an hour of work, I personally see no reason to move anywhere. You can part in different ways, the vibes you give off certainly matter, even when you're 100% technically correct. And I suggested comparing releases, not commits; Gitea is ahead here both in what it supported at the moment of the hard fork, and in what has been introduced since then (counting only the MIT version).
        srcreigh 1y ago
        What features is non-Enterprise Gitea ahead by? I can’t find any
        1y ago
  - mappu 1y ago
    A more charitable framing of the situation is: the for-profit company is because people always complained about Gitea "why is it developed on GitHub, not your own hosting" but that means money has to be involved in the cloud hosting project; it is just the same Gitea core developers it has always been, not a takeover. The "open core" (Gitea Enterprise) is not Gitea, it is a downstream fork by CommitGo, who you can pay for contract development for custom features. The features are expected to be upstreamed, there are open PRs, they just don't yet meet Gitea's code review standards. You can run them from the PRs if you like.
    - monster_truck 1y ago
      This sounds like a lot of work for no benefit
Incipient 1y ago
I use gitea and it "just works". I'm definitely not going anywhere.
stepupmakeup 1y ago
All 3 are still under active development.
000ooo000 1y ago
[flagged]
- bhaney 1y ago
  That's pretty obviously not what I'm bitching about
  - jraph 1y ago
    I get the annoyance of having to migrate (although migrating from gitea to forgejo was a matter or replacing the gitea binary with the forgejo binary up to until recently - completely painless), but you don't have to migrate. What are you bitching about, fundamentally? Life happens.
homebrewer 1y ago
We've been using gitea for 6 years, and I see no reason to migrate anywhere at this moment. Gitea sees faster development and has more features (even though many patches flow to Forgejo — the reverse is impossible due to license restrictions). It is possible to migrate from 1.22 to Forgejo simply by changing the binary, and downgrading from 1.24 to 1.23, and from 1.23 to 1.22 is possible if you know your way around PostgreSQL and have a spare hour. I always write downgrade scripts for each release and test them before upgrading Gitea to make sure that I can always back out and move to Forgejo if Gitea folds. Haven't seen much reason to do it up to this moment, though. edit: for example, here's a 1.23 → 1.22 downgrade script; I don't have access to 1.24 → 1.23 atm: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/7d8cab27 https://paste.debian.net/plainh/7d8cab27
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tap-snap-or-nap 1y ago
It's very likely not so different in function and performance for users and better suit their dev needs than what you may be used to.
joshbaptiste 1y ago
Why leave Gitea just because an alternative exists..
xedrac 1y ago
[flagged]
- WolfeReader 1y ago
  Why did you put the word feature in quotes? What you described is definitely a feature, no qualification needed.

by bhaney 1y ago

bigfishrunning 1y ago

Why would you have to migrate? If you're happy with Gitea just stay there.

bhaney 1y ago
According to Forgejo[1], Gitea underwent a secret hostile takeover by a for-profit company and has been moving from free software to "open core" bullshit. The reason that I, and I assume a lot of other people, made an effort to switch from Github to Gogs/Gitea was to evade the for-profit corpo nonfree crap. The more I'm looking into it, the more it looks like the real development is happening on Forgejo too. [1] https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/#why-was-forgejo-created https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/#why-was-forgejo-create...
- homebrewer 1y ago
  Yeah, it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon, and from where they continue to draw most of their functionality. Gitea is ahead on that despite patches flowing one way only. If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of activity you see. About half of the rest are cherry-picks from the Gitea repo. Look instead at the amount of features introduced with each version. Forgejo releases twice as often as Gitea does, so compare two releases of Forgejo with one release of Gitea made within the same time frame. I haven't been impressed so far. Also a bit more context: https://lwn.net/Articles/963608 https://lwn.net/Articles/963608
  - rowanG077 1y ago
    I don't think they are saying nasty things about the project they were born out of. They are saying nasty things about the corporate takeover.
  - bhaney 1y ago
    > it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon I'm not sure why that would make them hard to take seriously unless the things they're saying are false. Is that what you're claiming? > If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of activity you see If I thought number of commits strictly equals activity then I guess it would look like that, but I don't. From what I'm seeing, a lot of the Gitea devs left to go to Forgejo and are now working on it exclusively, while the work being done on Gitea gets selectively merged into Forgejo too. I don't actually care about that either - Gogs had all the features I wanted when I first installed it years ago and all I really want out of the maintainers is security patches. I'm mostly just concerned about licensing and ownership models that incentivize the software org to inevitably turn evil in the future.
    - homebrewer 1y ago
      None of the really heavy hitters from the "core team" have left. As long as 100% FOSS Gitea pulls ahead in functionality, and can be downgraded relatively easily with an hour of work, I personally see no reason to move anywhere. You can part in different ways, the vibes you give off certainly matter, even when you're 100% technically correct. And I suggested comparing releases, not commits; Gitea is ahead here both in what it supported at the moment of the hard fork, and in what has been introduced since then (counting only the MIT version).
      - srcreigh 1y ago
        What features is non-Enterprise Gitea ahead by? I can’t find any
      - 1y ago
- mappu 1y ago
  A more charitable framing of the situation is: the for-profit company is because people always complained about Gitea "why is it developed on GitHub, not your own hosting" but that means money has to be involved in the cloud hosting project; it is just the same Gitea core developers it has always been, not a takeover. The "open core" (Gitea Enterprise) is not Gitea, it is a downstream fork by CommitGo, who you can pay for contract development for custom features. The features are expected to be upstreamed, there are open PRs, they just don't yet meet Gitea's code review standards. You can run them from the PRs if you like.
  - monster_truck 1y ago
    This sounds like a lot of work for no benefit

Incipient 1y ago

I use gitea and it "just works". I'm definitely not going anywhere.

stepupmakeup 1y ago

All 3 are still under active development.

000ooo000 1y ago

[flagged]

bhaney 1y ago
That's pretty obviously not what I'm bitching about
- jraph 1y ago
  I get the annoyance of having to migrate (although migrating from gitea to forgejo was a matter or replacing the gitea binary with the forgejo binary up to until recently - completely painless), but you don't have to migrate. What are you bitching about, fundamentally? Life happens.

homebrewer 1y ago

We've been using gitea for 6 years, and I see no reason to migrate anywhere at this moment. Gitea sees faster development and has more features (even though many patches flow to Forgejo — the reverse is impossible due to license restrictions). It is possible to migrate from 1.22 to Forgejo simply by changing the binary, and downgrading from 1.24 to 1.23, and from 1.23 to 1.22 is possible if you know your way around PostgreSQL and have a spare hour. I always write downgrade scripts for each release and test them before upgrading Gitea to make sure that I can always back out and move to Forgejo if Gitea folds. Haven't seen much reason to do it up to this moment, though. edit: for example, here's a 1.23 → 1.22 downgrade script; I don't have access to 1.24 → 1.23 atm: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/7d8cab27 https://paste.debian.net/plainh/7d8cab27

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tap-snap-or-nap 1y ago

It's very likely not so different in function and performance for users and better suit their dev needs than what you may be used to.

joshbaptiste 1y ago

Why leave Gitea just because an alternative exists..

xedrac 1y ago

[flagged]

WolfeReader 1y ago
Why did you put the word feature in quotes? What you described is definitely a feature, no qualification needed.