71–80 of 187 posts
> [...]
> An enhanced enterprise version
It's sad to see Gitea not receiving enough donations/funding to stay afloat, and I obviously can't fault them for taking the necessary steps to generate revenue, but it's also sad to see it eventually going open-core.
(Which is how I read the announcement)
> If you are a company and rely on Gitea, especially for critical operations, please get in touch as we are now able to offer: > [...] > An enhanced enterprise version It's sad to see Gitea not receiving enough donations/funding to stay afloat, and I obviously can't fault them for taking the necessary steps to generate revenue, but it's also sad to see it eventually going open-core. (Which is how I read the announcem…
This is an even bigger problem than going open core and is begging for a fork to happen.
I am a big fan of Gitea, it does exactly what I wants it too and its very easy to maintain over time. I run it together with ZFS and SQLite. This enables atomic snapshot of both the database and git repository. And this is of course replicated to another system. SQLite is plenty fast, people should avoid more complex solutions using PostgreSQL or MySQL. I've also configured SSO with Azure Active Directory which every…
One thing is for certain: Gitea is no longer what it was a few days ago and there is no telling what the next 10 years have in store.
What jurisdiction will the organisation be registered in and in the unlikely event of a dispute how will that impact the project?
They need to put more effort on UI design. Gitea is a lot uglier than its alternative.
I'm surprised. I find Gitea pretty. More than GitLab. Looks similar to GitHub to me.
That's exactly what you get when you release Gitea under MIT.
What they are looking for is AGPL.
> If you are a company and rely on Gitea, especially for critical operations, please get in touch as we are now able to offer: > [...] > An enhanced enterprise version It's sad to see Gitea not receiving enough donations/funding to stay afloat, and I obviously can't fault them for taking the necessary steps to generate revenue, but it's also sad to see it eventually going open-core. (Which is how I read the announcem…
That is, I BELIEVE, the intention with the announcement and structural changes. As a relatively significant commercial backer of both bounties and Open Collective, I was as surprised as everyone to see the announcement. If my assumptions are correct, I completely agree with the decision. I want developers who contribute to gitea to benefit from the software they are building and think there is enormous potential for everyone to share in the upside.
It's an exciting, new junction for the project. I think we are a little bit in the dark at the moment and I'm pushing for better communication.
> there are a few corporations (with revenues that are greater than some countries GDP) are building on Gitea for core products without even contributing back enhancements That's exactly what you get when you release Gitea under MIT. What they are looking for is AGPL.
GPL scares people for stupid reasons (stupid from my fanatical perspective that if you use open source software, of course your derivatives ought to be open as well), Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL. Doesn't mean I'm sad to see they're not even trying to make these changes be contributed back going forward.
I've been donating to Gitea for years (on their Open Collective [1]) but if they start with this cryptocurrency/blockchain stuff, I am out. I am trying to fund development, not invest unstable currency technology. Gitea itself started as a fork of Gogs, it wouldn't be too surprising to see it fork again if they start being creative with the brand. [1]: https://opencollective.com/gitea
I don't think this announcement was handled particularly well, but nonetheless, I think it's an important development for gitea to grow and become sustainable.
Specifically, Gitea is in desperate need of full-time maintainers (and probably a part-time project manager), and I see this as an essential step to creating the necessary governance for that.
I remain cautiously optimistic and would encourage everyone who is passionate about the project to raise their concerns and wishes in a constructive way. Another fork would be a disaster for the entire ecosystem and I think should only happen if there really are SIGNIFICANTLY diverging interests in the project.
I also haven't heard anything in the gitea threads about crypto, so I think they're just referring to bounties and other distributed payments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is comparable to how Codeberg [0] is organized, which is also based on Gitea and one of the larger contributors upstream. Yet the number of members is tiny in comparison to their person base and growth. According to their latest numbers [1]: > We are hosting 42010 repositories, created and maintained by 34042 users. Compared to one month ago, this is an organic growth rate of +3372 repositories (+8.7% month-over…
To be fair, they don't exactly make it low-friction to become a member: > Membership fees are debited by means of SEPA direct debit. Please email to contact@codeberg.org for other transfer methods.