Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitea 1.19

blog.gitea.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Gitea 1.19

#51

Post by tjoff »

gempir wrote: post #12
barnabee wrote: post #6

For 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 issue is Forgejo doesn't really have the know-how or capabilities to drive this project forward. In the past months all they have done is rebrand Gitea and some minor fixes, but upstream (gitea) has added a huge number of features and merged tons of valuable pull requests. So are they just going to continuously merge upstream into their fork and do nothing besides that? The platform, Codeberg might be "well" fund…

> I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some money on the side with that.

That seems completely irrelevant and orthogonal to the outrage though?

Re: Gitea 1.19

#52

Post by joencott »

vorpalhex wrote: post #38

Ahhh 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.

Not enough people are talking about this, as soon as the company took over they started to remove functionality. Shame on them.

Re: Gitea 1.19

#53

Post by bioemerl »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #42
bioemerl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. https://github.com/a…

The people who accept pull requests and run the infrastructure of the Linux kernel aren't based on China, else I'd reject it as well.

> 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.

This is a good move. We're removing Lenovo laptops from our infrastructure here.

Re: Gitea 1.19

#54

Post by jolheiser »

joencott wrote: post #52
vorpalhex wrote: post #38

Ahhh 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.

Not enough people are talking about this, as soon as the company took over they started to remove functionality. Shame on them.

This was not a company decision, it was proposed by a non-company member and approved by two other non-company members (and one company member, but just pointing out context).

Re: Gitea 1.19

#55

Post by Reitet00 »

frodowtf wrote: post #47

Wow. 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?

FWIW it's possible to use Woodpecker as an alternative to Actions. I guess Gitea Actions will be more tightly coupled with Gitea.

Re: Gitea 1.19

#56

Post by remram »

vorpalhex wrote: post #38

Ahhh 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.

It seems it was only removed from the API. Are you really using it there? Can you say more about your use case?

Re: Gitea 1.19

#57

Post by remram »

bityard wrote: post #39
djha-skin wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

You can license your fork under a different compatible license (which is most other licenses, in the case of MIT). They can't prevent people from using the versions that were already released under MIT though (and continue being released under MIT by Gitea).

Re: Gitea 1.19

#59

Post by techknowlogick »

Reitet00 wrote: post #55
frodowtf wrote: post #47

Wow. 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?

FWIW it's possible to use Woodpecker as an alternative to Actions. I guess Gitea Actions will be more tightly coupled with Gitea.

I was just telling someone else how great Woodpecker is.

The protocol that Actions runners use to report logs/job statuses back to Gitea is an open protocol that maybe one day woodpecker could use it for enhanced integration with Gitea, so you could use woodpecker but have the experience be next to your code.

Disclaimer: I am listed as a maintainer of Woodpecker. I am a also part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea

Re: Gitea 1.19

#60

Post by djha-skin »

joencott wrote: post #49
bityard wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Very cool if true, but it appears they haven't done it yet: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICE...

Could someone post a link to the decision?

Post reply on HN