Today the for-profit company released a code dump for the implementation of an integrated CI/CD server. This was worked on for secret for months by multiple people with no say from the community. Gitea should work with Woodpecker for closer integration, not build one by itself. There is no incentive for the company to support alternative CI/CD

It's the first time I hear of Woodpecker https://woodpecker-ci.org/ And I thought I knew the CI/CD ecosystem fairly well. Now I learned that it's a fork of Drone https://www.drone.io/ Oh, the irony.

You should try it, Codeberg uses it for their public CI/CD

Why should Gitea/Forejo lock themselves into a CI product such as Woodpecker, which could, like Drone, be purchased out?

Creating standards would be better, but in the lack of, a closely tied CI/CD or runner or whatever would be sufficient.

Right now, even the Gitea/Gogs/Forgejo ecosystem is fragmented. The latter fork exists, but I don't see how it's different from Foregjo and I have no inclination to believe that it will be optimised for codeberg's use case beyond others, but now I do ask - if Gitea implements functionality such as CICD / run pipelines, will Forgejo keep that or strip it out of their fork, if they maintain upstream syncs?

Is there even a document about what the product aims are? If they're just going to maintain Gitea sync without adding functionality, why should I even look at it, which is likely to fall out of sync with Gitea?

Sorry, why should they work with Woodpecker? I like the project, but options are generally good. For example, Why work on Woodpecker? Why not Jenkins?

It is easy to use, and Codeberg uses it for their public CI/CD

Not to dismiss your comment but you appear entitled through comments like

> Gitea should work with Woodpecker for closer integration, not build one by itself.

> Codeberg uses it for their public CI/CD

Why should anyone care/use CI/CD software because Codeberg uses it? I didn't even know this company existed until just now. Isn't it rude to act entitled and act companies to bend to your will? You speak negatively of Gitea, highlighting a fork because they were working on a CI, but recommend Woodpecker which itself is a fork of Drone CI. What's your line of thinking here?

> Why should anyone care/use CI/CD software because Codeberg uses it?

Woodpecker is community-run, and Codeberg is a non-profit running the biggest Gitea instance.

> You speak negatively of Gitea, highlighting a fork because they were working on a CI

The for-profit Gitea company released the integrated CI/CD that should not be trusted because it was a code dump and worked on in secret. You can read more about the hostile takeover of Gitea at the open letter https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social

> Woodpecker which itself is a fork of Drone CI

Drone CI is not open source, and does not respect user freedoms.

>Woodpecker is community-run, and Codeberg is a non-profit running the biggest Gitea instance.

This is not the answer, really.

For example if anyone asks why should you use Firefox you can at least say Mozilla is trying to support an independent (as in "they have their own engine\stack") software that complies with modern standarts without addint it's own bullshit.

Not just because they are non profit or because of some of their views or whatever.

While closed sourced sofware owned for a profit entity has it's risks - so does the community-run software. Different risks but still risks. Endless number of forks is one of them.

Gitea itself was forked off of Gogs.

Gitea said they were going to make "An enhanced enterprise version" (i.e., a proprietary version). That's bad enough to warrant a fork in my book.

If only everyone follows ddevault's advice and starts each project with AGPL, that way no company can steal the code.

So it’s stealing to use a license you don’t like?

As an outsider, your posts throughout this thread come across as whiny, entitled m, and thoroughly self-serving.

No. Using a pushover license instead of the AGPL is like not locking your door, and using other people's free work in your own non-free product is stealing from the commons.

Things being what they are, gitea is essentially the form, and this is the continuation of the existing open source model. Gitea(Tm) is trying to fragment the community by creating a company, but this fork is just about building a great open source product.

If anyone at Gitea(Tm) is seriously afraid of fragmenting the community they are free to contribute to the open source product just like everyone else, but the open source community is naturally not free to engage in anything on behalf of the company.