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

41–46 of 46 posts

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

#41

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

bwblabs wrote: post #34
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forgejo is more busy managing ideals, than creating software. But managing ideals is far more important than creating software. Software is just a tool. It's a mean to an end, it's not the end in itself. If software improves humanity we should create it. If not, we shouldn't. We shouldn't create software just because. We can, but that's not ethical. And regarding your comments that "the original contributors stayed…

Not sure why you misquoted, I said "the main contributors stayed with Gitea", also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929247#45931139 When deciding which software fork to pick, it is about the development power. Also note my point about security: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929247#45930310

The misquotation was an accident but the point is the same. If the set of people who wanted to contribute to Free software split with from those who wanted to work for companies for free, that's an improvement.

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

#42

Post by bwblabs »

rolandog wrote: post #40
matrss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And from other comments: > When deciding which software fork to pick, it is about the development power. > In my view they don't have the development to keep up…

As I've mentioned elsewhere [0], sometimes there's just fake outrage trying to associate drama or a general feeling of disapproval with a particular project. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45597749

can't read your linked comment: [flagged]

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

#43

Post by bwblabs »

matrss wrote: post #38
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 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. And from other comments: > When deciding which software fork to pick, it is about the development power. > In my view they don't have the development to keep up…

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929247#45930310

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

#44

Post by matrss »

bwblabs wrote: post #11
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I know the claims, but look at Gitea version v1.24.7 (with some security fixes), released on October 25th, which includes 'fix LFS auth bypass, fix symlink bypass' that was merged on October 20th (#35708). This was fixed in Forgejo on the 25th https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/fa1a2ba669301238... and released on the 26th, although "Originally scheduled for 7 November, the release date of these patches was a…

Re: delayed security fixes, if a vulnerability is not yet publicly known and there is no indication that it is actively abused it is common practice to schedule fixes and give advance notice of them to have administrators be prepared to update promptly. The fact that the vulnerability was leaked beforehand is unfortunate, but Forgejo handled it well with rescheduling their release in response.

Re: license change, hard forking, and new features: my understanding is that Gitea wasn't very open to contributions coming from Forgejo. The hard fork seems to be a consequence of that. Yes, there used to be weekly cherry picks, I assume they stopped exactly because Forgejo and Gitea diverged to much and they became too much of a maintenance burden. Yes, this means Gitea has gotten features that aren't present in Forgejo since then. But you miss the point of the hard fork if you count this as a negative: Forgejo is deliberately diverging from Gitea now. Cooperation didn't work out, so they are no longer a superset of Gitea, but an entirely separate project. And as such they don't have more maintenance burden than Gitea itself.

And Forgejo definitely does not lack development power as its own now-independent project. They have features themselves that Gitea doesn't have. One notable that comes to mind is storage quotas, but there are many more too.

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

#45

Post by matrss »

bwblabs wrote: post #43
matrss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And from other comments: > When deciding which software fork to pick, it is about the development power. > In my view they don't have the development to keep up…

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929247#45930310

I responded to that comment, but it does not address why you think Forgejo is lacking development power. IMO it rather shows a lack of understanding on your part of what Forgejo is today. It no longer is a superset of Gitea since the hard fork, but its own independent project instead. And as such it has at least comparable activity to Gitea, which is reflected e.g. in the unique features that Forgejo has, but Gitea doesn't.

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

#46

Post by veeti »

bwblabs wrote: post #42
rolandog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've mentioned elsewhere [0], sometimes there's just fake outrage trying to associate drama or a general feeling of disapproval with a particular project. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45597749

can't read your linked comment: [flagged]

Do yourself a favor and enable showdead in settings.
Post reply on HN