[flagged]
This is really unfair to the many people who spend their free time working on Forgejo, please stop spreading nonsense. They have worked hard on "boring" improvements like translations, accessibility and proper unit and e2e testing, but also UI improvements, federation support, and other genuinely new features (asset quotas, wiki search, ...). Take a look for yourself: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls.
Regarding the money part, Forgejo is not monetized. It is a true FOSS project (recently re-licensed as GPLv3), not open-core like Gitea. The only funding they receive is from donations and grants, they are not selling a product.
What evidence do you have for this strong claim? I’m using Forgejo and contributed to the docs once. It seems to me real work is happening in Forgejo. A lot from what I can see is stabilizing infrastructure and fixing bugs. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Gitea (like Gogs) is under MIT license, which allow commercial applications. Is the new expectation of open source that we grant everyone license terms that they shouldn't use? I don't understand this at all.
Forgejo is under GPL-3.0, which also allows commercial applications. Should we expect the Forgejo community to start name-calling any company that would use Forgejo according to its license terms?
> In my point of view, as long as no deadlock..data race is unavoidable.
https://github.com/gogs/gogs/issues/613
> The payload comes from request somehow is not always in a clean format, so we have to preform a clean operation to remove unless characters:
func cleanCommand(cmd string) string {
i := strings.Index(cmd, "git")
if i == -1 {
return cmd
}
return cmd[i:]
}
But ymmv, I'm sure it's mostly because of how resource constrained it is.
It does what I want is completely FOSS and low maintenance. Perfect for my home setup, but different people will have different preferences