Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewflnr | Hacker News Reader

So 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?

View on HN

We're not, and they're still in the process of discussion. It seems a bit early to fork and witch-hunt [0]:

> So clarification here: you asked me about that, but I haven’t been able to respond to you due to my illnesses and I’m just getting back on my feet now. So it’s not that it hasn’t been well received, it’s that I’ve been physically unable to respond to you.

[0]: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/24257#issuecomment-23...

The quoted comment does say

> Unfortunately, they have already merged a version of this code into the private gitea repo and are charging $$ for it.

So if they can be trusted at face value, "a version of this code" means it's the same code, and would be an incorrect way of describing "an analogous feature with an unrelated implementation". But they could be making a mistake, of course.

Yeah, I read that. I'm just not prepared to rule out a mistake, either. For example, to play devil's advocate, if Gitea decided they didn't like this code but did want an audit feature, they might throw together their own. (Which would still be a bit of a dick move, but not on the same level.)

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com