Why is gitea, a self-hosted Github competitor, hosting its source on Github? Not a lot of dog-fooding going on over there.
They've been meaning to migrate for a while now, but have had various blockers.
Gitea 1.19
31–40 of 87 posts
Re: Gitea 1.19
#32For 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.
A small clarification, Gitea Ltd. which owns the trademark and domain is (apparently) based in China.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#33Why is gitea, a self-hosted Github competitor, hosting its source on Github? Not a lot of dog-fooding going on over there.
We are actively working on it, everything other than the main repo is on gitea.com and a lot of that is also being converted to dogfood actions.
The main repo, however, has a lot of issues/prs/etc metadata and so migrating is a bit harder.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#34[flagged]
Care to elaborate? I'd like to see some evidence on that.
When we are talking about something that can be set up to silently grab code, suddenly delete your projects, if you wait until there is foul play you're waiting too long. It's like waiting for evidence of a gunshot wound.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#35For 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
From what I, as an outsider, could see, it seemed like most contributors stayed with gitea. At this point forgejo is just a soft-fork as well, so there really isn't any reason or hurry to switch (yet) in my opinion. Though it did stand out that they are migrating stuff from gitea.io to gitea.com, as mentioned in this blog post.
Out of curiosity, why did that stand out?
We've had the .com domain for a little while, so now we're starting to consolidate things to it.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#36For 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
Quick note that the forked project doesn't have the CI feature released in 1.9, which is the primary subject of this thread.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 reason…
> it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation)
A quick clarification here, the new TOC is comprised of three company members and three community members, with community members having a slight advantage should there be a split vote on anything.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#38Ahhh this removes reverse proxy auth for the api!
This is horrible!
While reverse proxy auth should be disabled by default, this is critical. This breaking change makes gitea unsuitable for me going forward.
Reverse proxy auth is perfectly secure when correctly setup and is sensible in many configurations.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#39For 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,
No, Gitea Ltd is a new _Hong Kong_ for-profit company. No American companies are involved in any of this whatsoever.
The Gitea head honcho claims to be in Shanghai, China: https://gitea.com/lunny
> not that a company took it over.
No, the Forgejo folks were angry that the previously community-run project was taken into ownership of a for-profit company, without any notice, and against previous promises: https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social
> They didn't AGPL forego
Uh, they CAN'T relicense it to AGPL or anything else. The Gitea authors and contributors still hold the copyright on the code, which is MIT-licensed.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#40Really excited for Gitea Actions!! Will probably look into switching from GitHub now. Wasn't a fan of drone or having to maintain the integration with a separate CI/CD system.
Gitea actions looks neat though I'm not sure how you are meant to run windows or mac-centric workflows with it since the runtime (nektos/act) seems to require docker. If its not possible that might limit its usefulness somewhat...