Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by JonChesterfield on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:17PM
(#39527463)
It's a tangent, but I think it's interesting that Gitea started trying to self host in Feb 2017 (https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029) and hasn't got there yet (based on how active the github issues/PR page are).
https://about.gitea.com/ offers me a "free cloud trial" and otherwise sounds very like other web front ends to git. So like github, except they don't trust it themselves.
In contract forgejo has "Self-hosted alternative to GitHub" written in big letters on the landing page. https://codeberg.org/forgejo is indeed self hosted.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by fariszr on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:21PM
(#39527511)
Read some details in the issue and you will get an idea why they haven't migrated yet
The size of the issues in their repo is huge! Especially when including media like photos and videos.
Also funding hosting for such a thing is challenging, AFAIK they found a Chinese sponsor, but some of the community weren't so pleased with them.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by NewJazz on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:26PM
(#39527582)
You don't have to archive every last media and binary file. The size will only increase as time goes on, and so too will the expense of maintaining the archive. Better to start chewing now rather than wait for Microsoft to finish off GitLab and look for other competitors to demolish. I think they will be quick to realize they have one playing around in their front yard.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by KetoManx64 on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:22PM
(#39527519)
But then right below that on the Gitea page you linked they list their docker pulls statistics, which is primarily the self hosted community. Mixed messages indeed
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by edude03 on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:13PM
(#39527399)
(I'm not part of the Gitea community, just a casual user of gitea since the gogs days, so please take this for what it's worth -) I don't understand why Forges (and what feels like a large part of the free software community) is against corporate sponsorship.
The stated goal of '"ensuring the long term success of the project" by allowing companies "unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly
' seems extremely reasonable to a passerby and didn't seem to come with any strings attached, so why the knee jerk reaction of forking the project?
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by timetraveller26 on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:25PM
(#39527576)
From the article:
> Originally the project's governance, spelled out in an earlier version of its CONTRIBUTING.md file, specified the project would have three "owners" responsible for keeping development ""healthy"". The actual responsibilities and rights of the owners were vague, but they were to be elected yearly by Gitea's maintainers ""who decide with a simple voting model which contributions get accepted and who will play the owner role"".
> That community of maintainers did not get a vote when Gitea's domain and trademarks were quietly transferred by two of Gitea's "owners" (Lunny Xiao and Matti Ranta) to a for-profit business called Gitea Ltd. The announcement said this was to meet the goal of ""ensuring the long term success of the project"" by allowing companies ""unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution"" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by KRAKRISMOTT on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:27PM
(#39527595)
You might want to take a look at this thread. It's particularly spicy. Seems like the Forgejo founder is being disingenuous (though the Gitea founders are not much better either). Everybody is just in it for the money.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by wakawaka28 on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @07:04PM
(#39532035)
Calling it niche is a bit misleading. It has a clear and useful purpose, which is essentially the same as Github and Gitlab. But it's free! I'm not using it now but the couple of times I have, it seemed good.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by Pxtl on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:21PM
(#39527515)
So GitLab, Gitea, Fossil, ForgeJo, OneDev... the field is so balkanized, and so many of them are almost kinda sorta compatible with each other but not quite. The choices are intimidating because there's always the fear that you'll invest in a platform created by a small team and then be left orphaned if it fails.
...
So, how do you pronounce Forgejo? Forge-Joe? Forjei-ho? Forjei-o?
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by plorkyeran on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @02:08PM
(#39528220)
People who are not already using one of the non-Github forges have no clue what a "software forge" is. It's a very niche bit of jargon, and these days most developers are not even familiar with sourceforge.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by Pxtl on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:36PM
(#39527728)
Yeah, using an Esperanto word, and in particular one where the letters have very different pronounciation from English (the J is pronounced like Y and the E is not silent) seems like a bad move given that realistically the software world is in English.
Re:Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
by Pet_Ant on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @03:35PM
(#39529505)
> Gitea ... don't have CI/CD at all.
That seems to be no longer the case?
>> Starting with Gitea 1.19, Gitea Actions are available as a built-in CI/CD solution. ... It is similar and compatible to GitHub Actions, and its name is inspired by it too.
https://about.gitea.com/ offers me a "free cloud trial" and otherwise sounds very like other web front ends to git. So like github, except they don't trust it themselves.
In contract forgejo has "Self-hosted alternative to GitHub" written in big letters on the landing page. https://codeberg.org/forgejo is indeed self hosted.
Also funding hosting for such a thing is challenging, AFAIK they found a Chinese sponsor, but some of the community weren't so pleased with them.
The stated goal of '"ensuring the long term success of the project" by allowing companies "unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly ' seems extremely reasonable to a passerby and didn't seem to come with any strings attached, so why the knee jerk reaction of forking the project?
> Originally the project's governance, spelled out in an earlier version of its CONTRIBUTING.md file, specified the project would have three "owners" responsible for keeping development ""healthy"". The actual responsibilities and rights of the owners were vague, but they were to be elected yearly by Gitea's maintainers ""who decide with a simple voting model which contributions get accepted and who will play the owner role"".
> That community of maintainers did not get a vote when Gitea's domain and trademarks were quietly transferred by two of Gitea's "owners" (Lunny Xiao and Matti Ranta) to a for-profit business called Gitea Ltd. The announcement said this was to meet the goal of ""ensuring the long term success of the project"" by allowing companies ""unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution"" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly.
https://lwn.net/Articles/963608/
...
So, how do you pronounce Forgejo? Forge-Joe? Forjei-ho? Forjei-o?
https://forgejo.org/faq/
They also have a recording posted: https://forgejo.org/static/forgejo.mp4
Also the pronunciation recording does not match how I would expect it to be spelled. Fordgeo is what I'm hearing
Nobody knows how to pronounce gitea either. Half of people pronounce it "gi-te-ah".
On top of those, I've also heard the k at the end be replaced with h, which would also be correct, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_(letter)
The common pronunciation of latex /ˈleɪˌtɛks/ would be incorrect.
For Kubernetes, Wikipedia lists eight different pronunciations: /ˌk(j)uːbərˈnɛtɪs, -ˈneɪtɪs, -ˈneɪtiːz, -ˈnɛtiːz/, with the j after k being optional.
NGINX feels like the most straightforward out of these, even though it is rarely pronounced correctly.
As for myself, I like to call it NG Inks, as in next-gen tattoos, at least whenever I hear it pronounced wrong :)
I have a feeling that's not the best metric, but go off.
Their landing page has this to say:
> Forgejo is a self-hosted lightweight software forge.
This tells me basically nothing, at least nothing useful in terms of what they are offering.
>This tells me basically nothing, at least nothing useful in terms of what they are offering.
What else could they add to be clearer?
* Software forge
* Self hosted
* Lightweight
I find these terms to be clear.
I was wrong.
Golly, I learnt something!
Just like .gif, yeah.
....
Yeah, everybody's gonna call it Forge Joe.
Which ones are compatible with GitHub actions? To me that is the most important aspect. So much is done with those and I really don't want to relearn.
That seems to be no longer the case?
>> Starting with Gitea 1.19, Gitea Actions are available as a built-in CI/CD solution. ... It is similar and compatible to GitHub Actions, and its name is inspired by it too.
https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/actions/overview
Which seems to have been released almost a year ago
https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.19.0/
https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/
They make no guarantee of compatibility with Github Actions but they seem to be aiming for it based on the syntax.
https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/overview
Both have “Actions” that are act based and very similar to GitHub Actions and offers some compatibility.