Forgejo makes a full break from Gitea
lwn.net
lwn.net
https://about.gitea.com/ offers me a "free cloud trial" and otherwise sounds very like other web front ends to git. So like github, except they don't trust it themselves.
In contract forgejo has "Self-hosted alternative to GitHub" written in big letters on the landing page. https://codeberg.org/forgejo is indeed self hosted.
Also funding hosting for such a thing is challenging, AFAIK they found a Chinese sponsor, but some of the community weren't so pleased with them.
The stated goal of '"ensuring the long term success of the project" by allowing companies "unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly ' seems extremely reasonable to a passerby and didn't seem to come with any strings attached, so why the knee jerk reaction of forking the project?
> Originally the project's governance, spelled out in an earlier version of its CONTRIBUTING.md file, specified the project would have three "owners" responsible for keeping development ""healthy"". The actual responsibilities and rights of the owners were vague, but they were to be elected yearly by Gitea's maintainers ""who decide with a simple voting model which contributions get accepted and who will play the owner role"".
> That community of maintainers did not get a vote when Gitea's domain and trademarks were quietly transferred by two of Gitea's "owners" (Lunny Xiao and Matti Ranta) to a for-profit business called Gitea Ltd. The announcement said this was to meet the goal of ""ensuring the long term success of the project"" by allowing companies ""unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution"" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly.
...
So, how do you pronounce Forgejo? Forge-Joe? Forjei-ho? Forjei-o?
They also have a recording posted: https://forgejo.org/static/forgejo.mp4
Also the pronunciation recording does not match how I would expect it to be spelled. Fordgeo is what I'm hearing
Just like .gif, yeah.
Their landing page has this to say:
> Forgejo is a self-hosted lightweight software forge.
This tells me basically nothing, at least nothing useful in terms of what they are offering.
>This tells me basically nothing, at least nothing useful in terms of what they are offering.
What else could they add to be clearer?
* Software forge
* Self hosted
* Lightweight
I find these terms to be clear.
I was wrong.
Golly, I learnt something!
Nobody knows how to pronounce gitea either. Half of people pronounce it "gi-te-ah".
On top of those, I've also heard the k at the end be replaced with h, which would also be correct, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_(letter)
The common pronunciation of latex /ˈleɪˌtɛks/ would be incorrect.
For Kubernetes, Wikipedia lists eight different pronunciations: /ˌk(j)uːbərˈnɛtɪs, -ˈneɪtɪs, -ˈneɪtiːz, -ˈnɛtiːz/, with the j after k being optional.
NGINX feels like the most straightforward out of these, even though it is rarely pronounced correctly.
As for myself, I like to call it NG Inks, as in next-gen tattoos, at least whenever I hear it pronounced wrong :)
I have a feeling that's not the best metric, but go off.
....
Yeah, everybody's gonna call it Forge Joe.
Which ones are compatible with GitHub actions? To me that is the most important aspect. So much is done with those and I really don't want to relearn.
https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/overview
Both have “Actions” that are act based and very similar to GitHub Actions and offers some compatibility.
https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/
They make no guarantee of compatibility with Github Actions but they seem to be aiming for it based on the syntax.
That seems to be no longer the case?
>> Starting with Gitea 1.19, Gitea Actions are available as a built-in CI/CD solution. ... It is similar and compatible to GitHub Actions, and its name is inspired by it too.
https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/actions/overview
Which seems to have been released almost a year ago