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.

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...

Gitea soft forked act as well, from 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."

I see, removed that from my comment then. 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.