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

Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 46 posts

Re: Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

#4

Post by bwblabs »

Very positive to have a governmental hosted git/code platform, although I would still advise Gitea (it's not documented that pick is explored).

I'm a self hosting GoGogs / Gitea user for almost 10 years, I did follow the Gitea fork. However regarding the Forgejo fork: the main contributors stayed with Gitea. The ideologically forked Forgejo made some license changes and hard fork decisions that increased the maintenance burden even more, resulting in missing upstream features and decreased security. Forgejo is more busy managing ideals, than creating software.

Re: Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

#5

Post by krick »

bwblabs wrote: post #4

Very positive to have a governmental hosted git/code platform, although I would still advise Gitea (it's not documented that pick is explored). I'm a self hosting GoGogs / Gitea user for almost 10 years, I did follow the Gitea fork. However regarding the Forgejo fork: the main contributors stayed with Gitea. The ideologically forked Forgejo made some license changes and hard fork decisions that increased the maintena…

Thanks. I was wondering what is the status of it, given that Forgejo is being pushed more in the media lately. TBH, I haven't understood the controversy even after reading a couple of recaps. I remember it being about having "suddenly revealed" a couple of years ago that the guy on top is the owner of the trademark. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me, given that he actually was the main contributor and de-facto the leader of the project the whole time.

But then a couple of years have passed, and I started to hear about Forgejo more often only very recently, so I was wondering, if maybe the original project actually had some downfall and questionable technical decisions since. I still haven't switched, and was wondering if I should do so. As far, as I've heard it's still basically a matter of running the different docker container with the same volume, and it should work seamlessly. So what's about this "hard fork" you are mentioning? Did it actually break compatibility?

Re: Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

#6

Post by szszrk »

bwblabs wrote: post #4

Very positive to have a governmental hosted git/code platform, although I would still advise Gitea (it's not documented that pick is explored). I'm a self hosting GoGogs / Gitea user for almost 10 years, I did follow the Gitea fork. However regarding the Forgejo fork: the main contributors stayed with Gitea. The ideologically forked Forgejo made some license changes and hard fork decisions that increased the maintena…

Why would they rather talk to gitea?

Isn't it sensible for a European government to talk to a player that is being backed by European companies and has a cleaner approach to open source?

I'm not arguing, I'm asking what's the rationale here.

Re: Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

#8

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

bwblabs wrote: post #4

Very positive to have a governmental hosted git/code platform, although I would still advise Gitea (it's not documented that pick is explored). I'm a self hosting GoGogs / Gitea user for almost 10 years, I did follow the Gitea fork. However regarding the Forgejo fork: the main contributors stayed with Gitea. The ideologically forked Forgejo made some license changes and hard fork decisions that increased the maintena…

The Forgejo people say that it is Gitea who is compromising security [0]. Not involved either way, but I have seen enough rug pulls that I will prefer the product which does not have a commercial offering and financial incentives to sabotage it.

https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/

Re: Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

#9

Post by isodev »

kouunji wrote: post #7

This is brilliant, especially if this kind of approach was adopted in policy development. Chunks of vetted “code” that is transparently shared and can be used by other governments facing similar challenges…imagine…

Indeed. Very refreshing to see this approach. Also, Forgejo is a brilliant choice, I hope the talks continue.

Re: Meeting notes between Forgejo and the Dutch government via Git commits

#10

Post by krick »

szszrk wrote: post #6
bwblabs wrote: post #4

Very positive to have a governmental hosted git/code platform, although I would still advise Gitea (it's not documented that pick is explored). I'm a self hosting GoGogs / Gitea user for almost 10 years, I did follow the Gitea fork. However regarding the Forgejo fork: the main contributors stayed with Gitea. The ideologically forked Forgejo made some license changes and hard fork decisions that increased the maintena…

Why would they rather talk to gitea? Isn't it sensible for a European government to talk to a player that is being backed by European companies and has a cleaner approach to open source? I'm not arguing, I'm asking what's the rationale here.

It appears to me that the rationale was clearly stated in GP:

> resulting in missing upstream features and decreased security

I.e. it's a matter of technical superiority, which, to me, how the decisions should be made. Not by having friends in the community and all of us being Europeans and so on. (But, of course, I would be glad to hear more particular details/examples of Forgejo lagging behind.)

Post reply on HN