Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forgejo is a word from a non-English language (Esperanto). It's pronounced "for-jay-o" which I find pretty easy to say.
A non-English, fake language invented in the late 19th century.
[deleted]
Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
71–80 of 87 posts
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how they're run internally, but they seem to have merged a lot of good features that the Codeberg folks developed, so they must do at least a bit more than bicker. What controversial PRs have they merged? I haven't heard about that and it makes me a bit nervous, but I'm not finding anything obviously wrong searching for it.
I can't speak to controversial PRs, but I got very nervous about Forgejo when they memory-holed a good faith critique of the appointment of a specific new moderator. Someone on HN linked a discussion where Forgejo was appointing a moderator [0] and had received pushback. A critic of the decision had said something along the lines of "this person has severely abused authority in this community in the past and I'm not…
[dead]
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#73Why would someone be motivated to contribute free code to Gitea after everything? Is "forgejo" really so stupid a name that people are willing to risk being exploited by Gitea?
I'm still very much on the fence about Forgejo. I use it, but I don't trust the maintainers after seeing how they handled dissent in appointment of a moderator, and I wouldn't invest time in contributing to it directly at this stage. I added more details here for the curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41489578
[dead]
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of linking to comments (wtf), I'm gonna link to their surprisingly active list of merged PRs. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=... Not sure what your claim about "doesn't seem to do much" is based on.
The first two pages are docs, dependency bot, and one XSS patch. Hard to know what's going on when 90% of those PRs are bot generated. Maybe they're active, maybe not, I certainly don't know, but it's definitely not clear from the link you posted.
[dead]
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#75Hi. I'm techknowlogick, one of the two reviewers who have requested changes on this PR. A couple of clarifications:
1. I hadn't been able to continue my conversation with Kyle due to illness, and I am still dealing with it, but I am working on continuing that conversation.
2. The feedback that is holding up the PR is technical. Logging that amount of data has performance implications, and one of Gitea's main tenants is that it can run on reduced hardware. We know what impact it would have, as we are dealing with it from other tables. We don't have the ability to backport migrations to add indexes, etc.. (something that CommitGo has put a bounty on, though), so if it gets merged now and "well fix the filtering/etc.. later" means that if it gets merged then we have at least 6 months of bug reports around performance issues.
3. the code that is in the alternate distribution is different and doesn't include that PR. It is a few SQL inserts to log logins, package downloads, and git clones. 4. I am largely in favour of getting the PR merged, but if it means degraded performance and bug reports that we have to ask users to create DB indexes manually, that's something that I would hope could be avoided.
CommitGo, is the largest contributor to Gitea, and has contributed Actions in its entirety to the project. If the goal is to keep code away from the project for profit, that would be the one.
The priority of the company is to ensure the continued success of Gitea.
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#76The controversy here is described in the following comment: > Unfortunately, they have already merged a version of this code into the private gitea repo and are charging $$ for it. So Gitea Ltd. (owners group) has no incentive to review and merge this in an open source repo, even though the open source community has funded and developed it. > This is a cynical take, but I have raised these concerns in private channel…
I'd like to understand whether Gitea really merged a version of that code , or if they had a separate implementation that's in the enterprise version. If they've merged that code but refuse to make it available in the community version - when it's been contributed by the community - that's one (very uncool) thing. It's slightly different if they already have the feature from homegrown code and they don't want to merg…
I commented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547, but it's a different code, much more of an MVP than the fully fleshed-out functionality of this PR. Once the PR is merged, effort to resolve conflicts would be minimal, as the other code logs only a fraction of the PR and doesn't overlap in most places.
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#77The controversy here is described in the following comment: > Unfortunately, they have already merged a version of this code into the private gitea repo and are charging $$ for it. So Gitea Ltd. (owners group) has no incentive to review and merge this in an open source repo, even though the open source community has funded and developed it. > This is a cynical take, but I have raised these concerns in private channel…
I commented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547, but I wasn't able to continue my conversation with Kyle due to health reasons, but as I am recovering I am working on continuing them.
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it gives him the right to critique the maintainers over this specific topic and situation. He clearly has no qualms about profiting from their work himself. So why does he have a problem with them profiting from other contributors' work? Gitea's stance regarding why certain features are Enterprise-only is quite reasonable: "Many features, and enhancements are prevented from being included in the Gitea…
If it’s good enough to merge into the enterprise branch, it’s good enough to merge into the community branch. It may be expensive; that’s why there was a community-funded bounty placed on it. If the complaint is that Gitea is too complex to maintain for free, then great, start a company around it to fund a private fork. But then you shouldn’t be allowed to stop the community from merging their own crap in their own f…
I commented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547, but tldr, its different code (a much more minimal implementation), and the PR isn't being prevented from merging, there is review that has feedback that hasn't been addressed yet. We have seen with other DB tables how when they grow significantly (and if you are logging every action this will happen) then performance is impacted. So there are suggestions on ways of addressing it in a way that wouldn't require manual intervention from users to resolve while waiting for additional PRs.
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s good enough to merge into the enterprise branch, it’s good enough to merge into the community branch. It may be expensive; that’s why there was a community-funded bounty placed on it. If the complaint is that Gitea is too complex to maintain for free, then great, start a company around it to fund a private fork. But then you shouldn’t be allowed to stop the community from merging their own crap in their own f…
> If it’s good enough to merge into the enterprise branch, it’s good enough to merge into the community branch. It's not clear yet that the Enterprise version of this feature is the same code as this PR, right? Do you have evidence otherwise? > It may be expensive; that’s why there was a community-funded bounty placed on it. How much was the bounty, who funded it, and who receives it? I don't see any information abou…
Hi to be clear, there is a TOC of 6 members which there are elections yearly for the community spots, and it is the formal body that leads the project. The project has also more than doubled the number of community maintainers that can merge PRs, and over the past two years active PRs (merged, review, etc..) has gone from 100/mo to ~400/mo. But reviews from maintainers hold equal weight, and if they didn't then I would've been able to merge one of my PRs that took over 2 years to get in much faster.
Re: Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions
#80So the evidence here is that the Gitea Enterprise page now advertises an audit feature? Mainly for thoroughness: how sure are we that it's the same code?
I commented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547, but tldr it's different code, much more of an MVP than the fully fleshed-out functionality of this PR. Once the PR is merged, effort to resolve conflicts would be minimal, as the other code logs only a fraction of the PR and doesn't overlap in most places. Hopefully the technical concerns can be addressed and the PR can be mereged.