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

FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

code.ffmpeg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 374 posts

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#11

Post by bhaney »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #4
bhaney wrote: post #3

I'm finding out about Forgejo (and their reasons for forking Gitea) right now for the first time. I already migrated my Gogs install to Gitea, and now I have to migrate Gitea to Forgejo? This shit is why people just stay on Github.

Why would you have to migrate? If you're happy with Gitea just stay there.

According to Forgejo[1], Gitea underwent a secret hostile takeover by a for-profit company and has been moving from free software to "open core" bullshit. The reason that I, and I assume a lot of other people, made an effort to switch from Github to Gogs/Gitea was to evade the for-profit corpo nonfree crap. The more I'm looking into it, the more it looks like the real development is happening on Forgejo too.

[1] https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/#why-was-forgejo-create...

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#12

Post by bhaney »

000ooo000 wrote: post #9
bhaney wrote: post #3

I'm finding out about Forgejo (and their reasons for forking Gitea) right now for the first time. I already migrated my Gogs install to Gitea, and now I have to migrate Gitea to Forgejo? This shit is why people just stay on Github.

[flagged]

That's pretty obviously not what I'm bitching about

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#13

Post by homebrewer »

bhaney wrote: post #11
bigfishrunning wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you have to migrate? If you're happy with Gitea just stay there.

According to Forgejo[1], Gitea underwent a secret hostile takeover by a for-profit company and has been moving from free software to "open core" bullshit. The reason that I, and I assume a lot of other people, made an effort to switch from Github to Gogs/Gitea was to evade the for-profit corpo nonfree crap. The more I'm looking into it, the more it looks like the real development is happening on Forgejo too. [1] http…

Yeah, it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon, and from where they continue to draw most of their functionality. Gitea is ahead on that despite patches flowing one way only. If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of activity you see. About half of the rest are cherry-picks from the Gitea repo.

Look instead at the amount of features introduced with each version. Forgejo releases twice as often as Gitea does, so compare two releases of Forgejo with one release of Gitea made within the same time frame. I haven't been impressed so far.

Also a bit more context: https://lwn.net/Articles/963608

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#15

Post by rowanG077 »

homebrewer wrote: post #13
bhaney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Forgejo[1], Gitea underwent a secret hostile takeover by a for-profit company and has been moving from free software to "open core" bullshit. The reason that I, and I assume a lot of other people, made an effort to switch from Github to Gogs/Gitea was to evade the for-profit corpo nonfree crap. The more I'm looking into it, the more it looks like the real development is happening on Forgejo too. [1] http…

Yeah, it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon, and from where they continue to draw most of their functionality. Gitea is ahead on that despite patches flowing one way only. If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of act…

I don't think they are saying nasty things about the project they were born out of. They are saying nasty things about the corporate takeover.

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#16

Post by dsissitka »

ec109685 wrote: post #2

Why did it move to Forgejo?

It sounds like they're still testing but there's this from https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2025-July/346938.h...:

  ### July 22nd, 2025, Modernization of contributions
  
  The project is modernizing its contribution methods and switching to a software
  forge.
  
  We have setup a platform on [code.ffmpeg.org](https://code.ffmpeg.org/). The new
  process features continuous integration on all commits and merge requests,
  labelling for categorization, conflict resolution, and logging in via OpenID or
  Github.
  
  The main repository will become
  [code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg](https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg), with all
  others being mirrored to it. Users are encouraged to begin using it, effective
  now.
  
  Mailing lists have supported our development for nearly 25 years, but as more
  and more contributors started to become involved, the ratio of merged patches to
  total mails begun falling. Mailing lists became a source of friction, with
  discussions frequently stalling and uncategorized noise drowning out patches by
  bumping them down in inboxes.
  
  Although [patchwork.ffmpeg.org](https://patch.ffmpeg.org/) was set up to track
  submissions, it was less than reliable, with many patches and mails slipping
  though. Since its activation exactly 9 years ago, it recorded 54,476 patches,
  with 53,650 patches having the state of not archived. In comparison, the mailing
  list has had a total of 150,736 emails during the same time period.
  
  Additionally, new users have frequently encountered difficulties with mailing
  list development. From finding out the correct SMTP login details, configuring
  git send-email, new email security mechanisms interfering with mailing list
  operations, and finally not having a comfortable workflow to review patches.
  
  After years of discussions, and a vote, we officially announce the new platform,
  [code.ffmpeg.org](https://code.ffmpeg.org/), running
  [Forgejo](https://forgejo.org/). Documentation will be updated to reflect the
  change.
  
  Mailing lists will continue to be monitored, and used for project discussions
  and other topics better discussed elsewhere, but traffic and noise should become
  significantly reduced over time.
  
  Bugs/issues will be accepted on [code.ffmpeg.org](https://code.ffmpeg.org/),
  alongside with [trac.ffmpeg.org](https://trac.ffmpeg.org/) for the time being.
  
  We are also hoping that this will significantly reduce the amount of unmerged
  patches. If you submitted a patch which received no replies or conclusion, we
  apologize, and you are encouraged to resubmit it on the new platform.

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#17

Post by [deleted] »

bhaney wrote: post #3

I'm finding out about Forgejo (and their reasons for forking Gitea) right now for the first time. I already migrated my Gogs install to Gitea, and now I have to migrate Gitea to Forgejo? This shit is why people just stay on Github.

[deleted]

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#18

Post by tap-snap-or-nap »

bhaney wrote: post #3

I'm finding out about Forgejo (and their reasons for forking Gitea) right now for the first time. I already migrated my Gogs install to Gitea, and now I have to migrate Gitea to Forgejo? This shit is why people just stay on Github.

It's very likely not so different in function and performance for users and better suit their dev needs than what you may be used to.

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#20

Post by bhaney »

homebrewer wrote: post #13
bhaney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Forgejo[1], Gitea underwent a secret hostile takeover by a for-profit company and has been moving from free software to "open core" bullshit. The reason that I, and I assume a lot of other people, made an effort to switch from Github to Gogs/Gitea was to evade the for-profit corpo nonfree crap. The more I'm looking into it, the more it looks like the real development is happening on Forgejo too. [1] http…

Yeah, it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon, and from where they continue to draw most of their functionality. Gitea is ahead on that despite patches flowing one way only. If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of act…

> it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon

I'm not sure why that would make them hard to take seriously unless the things they're saying are false. Is that what you're claiming?

> If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level of activity you see

If I thought number of commits strictly equals activity then I guess it would look like that, but I don't. From what I'm seeing, a lot of the Gitea devs left to go to Forgejo and are now working on it exclusively, while the work being done on Gitea gets selectively merged into Forgejo too. I don't actually care about that either - Gogs had all the features I wanted when I first installed it years ago and all I really want out of the maintainers is security patches. I'm mostly just concerned about licensing and ownership models that incentivize the software org to inevitably turn evil in the future.

Post reply on HN