[flagged]
Care to elaborate? I'd like to see some evidence on that.
Gitea 1.19
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: Gitea 1.19
#22I remember there being a big stink about Gitea, so much so that it was forked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581 I don't use Gitea, but if I were to start today would there be a proper reason to avoid Gitea?
Currently the fork is simple rebranding with a few small changes here and there.
Both of them will give you nearly the same experience, and they are a soft fork so all Gitea changes will be available.
I'm biased as a community member of the Gitea TOC, so I'd of course recommend Gitea.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#23Re: Gitea 1.19
#24I'm super excited Gitea is becoming better and better. Gotta be honest though; the really exciting feature I'm waiting for is ActivityPub[1] support. That will really make my single gitea instance much more interesting, when I can accept PRs from other instances and make them to theirs.
A lot of comments about "Forgejo". In short: meh. Not a big deal[2]. I'll be sticking with Gitea.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#25For info: there was some drama a while back [0], [1] and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/ Seemed to me like they had a point and it's worth considering following that project [2] instead. [0] https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33372471 [2] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo
It's a soft fork though, so the Forgejo folks are still relying on the Gitea team for features like this. The Forgejo folks seem to object to Gitea on the basis that a company took the project over. I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1…
I think the concern was of corporate exploitation in the name of profits, in which case I don't think forking and having a non-profit at the helm hypocritical. It's actually a very defensive position to prevent corporate interests from snatching up the project once more.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#26I remember there being a big stink about Gitea, so much so that it was forked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581 I don't use Gitea, but if I were to start today would there be a proper reason to avoid Gitea?
Gitea was taken from a community run project to an corporate owned one to allow for an open core future. Currently there's been no actions taken that negatively affect the open project, but the door is now open for a "This isn't working for our company, we're now going to SSPL" style move in the future.
I am a community member of the Gitea TOC, and there will be no open core model.
Gitea will remain fully open source with no tiers.
The community TOC also has advantages in any such voting where something may negatively affect the OS project, although as you mentioned that hasn't happened yet, and I don't expect it will.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#27Why is gitea, a self-hosted Github competitor, hosting its source on Github?
Not a lot of dog-fooding going on over there.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a pretty strong statement to make without backing it up with some evidence of foul play, or at least evidence of these links.
Also Chinese author != CCP. You can read the source code and build binaries from the provided source.
With a large project unless a large auditor goes into your code and reads it with a fine comb it's not a good idea to have blind trust in it.
And Chinese author does mean CCP, assuming they live in China they are almost certainly able to be compromised and it is a bad decision to trust them with something as valuable as your whole code base.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#29For info: there was some drama a while back [0], [1] and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/ Seemed to me like they had a point and it's worth considering following that project [2] instead. [0] https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33372471 [2] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo
It's a soft fork though, so the Forgejo folks are still relying on the Gitea team for features like this. The Forgejo folks seem to object to Gitea on the basis that a company took the project over. I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1…
> I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical.
Straining to assume good faith here but this seems very likely to be wilful misinfo - particularly given the emphasis. The reasons for the fork are very clearly stated in the lettter linked in the comment you're replying to: it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation). It's also about profit: the US corp is for-profit.
Secondly, not only are Codeberg a non-profit, they also adopted the project after the fork. That wasn't a part of the original letter nor discussion. They don't control the project (see aforementioned objections on the basis of democratic input) - they're a host & benefactor.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#30[flagged]
That’s a pretty strong statement to make without backing it up with some evidence of foul play, or at least evidence of these links.
If you have evidence of foul play it's already far far too late to do anything.
With authoritarian nations and their ability to control and steal your projects, you assume guilty until proven innocent. You should require there be a real audit before you trust gitea.