Gitea 1.22 is the last version to allow a transparent ugprade to Forgejo
forgejo.org
forgejo.org
This article makes it clear that I have to pick, but gives no clue as to how I would do that.
I have found https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/ but there again, it's all about the governance and the development process. The federation is a concrete feature I guess, but it's not there yet for either Gitea or Forgejo.
Gitea has a great active community and remains MIT license with no CLA.
Repo license support, integrated Arch package repository, automatic issue suggestions, and the new review+homepage UIs would be notable ones for me.
It felt alright to keep it open when there was still a chance for it to benefit both projects, but now that that's gone, I see no reason to keep putting up with months of silence and accumulating conflicts between review comments.
Pretty big gap in the "packages" feature.
Some of the forgejo devs apparently believe that a collective copyright header is the same thing as a copyright assignment: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27455 & https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/67 I disagree on that point personally, but is there precedent here anywhere in the world?
Now that forgejo is not hard-tracking the gitea source, maybe we'll see in a year or two which project has better technical velocity or whatnot. IMO it's a coin toss between the two at this juncture.
What would even be the point of a closed source github clone? Why would anyone chose Gitea of github in that case?
All it really takes is some investor pressure or a bright idea that they could chase some large enterprise sales money, and then youll see more optimizations in that direction.
Sometimes they're useful, like in cases where theres features that are important and even critical for medium-large enterprise usecases, but most people find boring to develop for. The risk comes, IMO, if you dilute the core product value while chasing those objectives.
Why the hell are Actions and 20GB "containers" used? It all makes simple command line installs in a container so hard to do. Actions overcomplicate simple stuff like git clone by burying it in mountains of TyseScript to the point of no recognizability or transparency. And having an external dependency on someone others otherworldly wrapped shell script. A singe-purpose container does not exist in that type of world which utterly defeats the whole point of using containers.
Is there a similar CI implementation to GitLab out there?
I don't know why they picked the GitHub thing for their CI.