Nice to see Blender team being thanked as major contributors for Gitea :)
Gitea 1.19
41–50 of 87 posts
Re: Gitea 1.19
#42Earlier 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.
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.
Half of gitea's contributors are from Europe. Wait until you learn how much "Chinese" code is in the Linux kernel these days.
This anti-Chinese hysteria is hilarious to watch from the sidelines, honestly. A few months ago there was a comment on HN by some American whose company was rewriting their frontend when they learned that antd (a React component toolkit) was developed by a Chinese company.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#43For 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
The problem is that at this point they are just re-publishing the Gitea releases with a different name and branding. I'm all for forks when they become necessary, but is there anything there yet?
Re: Gitea 1.19
#44Really 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...
One contributor to nektos/act and Gitea's act_runner (ChristopherHX) contributor "host" mode to act, which allows you to run without docker.
Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea project, the TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea
Re: Gitea 1.19
#45For 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.
I assume they will follow up with their own 1.19 release soon. The blog below indicates they will have the CI feature.
Re: Gitea 1.19
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
One contributor to nektos/act and Gitea's act_runner (ChristopherHX) contributor "host" mode to act, which allows you to run without docker. Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea project, the TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea
I think this is the PR: https://github.com/nektos/act/pull/1293
This is perfect for my needs. Thank you to the Gitea folks for getting this added/integrated!
Re: Gitea 1.19
#47Wow. Great progress! Recently, I was wondering why gitea does not have a GitHub Actions alternative. What a timing.
BTW, a colleague of mine told me that GitHub Actions wasn't supposed to be a CI/CD alternative at the time when it was released. I couldn't find any note on that online. Is it true?
Re: Gitea 1.19
#48For 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…
Forgejo is AGPL, there was just a vote and the community came out strongly to say they disagree with commercial usage of Forgejo! I am so happy they did that!
Re: Gitea 1.19
#49Earlier 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, 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…
Forgejo did relicense, there was a democratic vote and the it was agreed to finally relicense to a license that respects user's freedoms
Re: Gitea 1.19
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quick note that the forked project doesn't have the CI feature released in 1.9, which is the primary subject of this thread.
I assume they will follow up with their own 1.19 release soon. The blog below indicates they will have the CI feature. https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/
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.