jolheiser

Just to clarify, we (Gitea) are not crypto shillers, the linked post explicitly mentions not creating some scamcoin. Beyond that, we also haven't looked further into it as it became increasingly clear it was unwanted.

I'm unsure about the wording on Wikipedia, but I don't recall Lunny ever trying to take all the credit, just that he was an early and frequent committer.

We (Gitea) inherited the UI from Gogs, and iirc the UI choice was partially because Gogs was a one man show and partially because a familiar interface eases transition from GitHub.

We have talked about UI refreshes over the years, but it would be a huge undertaking while also keeping up with the rapid iteration.

I am not with the fork, but seeing as people ask this about us all the time I can relate.

https://forgejo.org/static/forgejo.mp4

This was not a company decision, it was proposed by a non-company member and approved by two other non-company members (and one company member, but just pointing out context).

> it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation)

A quick clarification here, the new TOC is comprised of three company members and three community members, with community members having a slight advantage should there be a split vote on anything.

Out of curiosity, why did that stand out?

We've had the .com domain for a little while, so now we're starting to consolidate things to it.

We are actively working on it, everything other than the main repo is on gitea.com and a lot of that is also being converted to dogfood actions.

The main repo, however, has a lot of issues/prs/etc metadata and so migrating is a bit harder.

I am a community member of the Gitea TOC, and there will be no open core model.

Gitea will remain fully open source with no tiers.

The community TOC also has advantages in any such voting where something may negatively affect the OS project, although as you mentioned that hasn't happened yet, and I don't expect it will.

Currently the fork is simple rebranding with a few small changes here and there.

Both of them will give you nearly the same experience, and they are a soft fork so all Gitea changes will be available.

I'm biased as a community member of the Gitea TOC, so I'd of course recommend Gitea.

I'm one of the community members on the Gitea TOC.

Just to clarify, only one maintainer left the project to my knowledge, although a few other contributors did as well. The majority of us remained with the Gitea project.

Actions are mostly still in beta with 1.19, disabled by default.

In general, one big thing that's been mentioned is that our actions don't currently support things like services (among other things), so while they are good for a quick CI, they aren't quite ready to replace a full CI system yet.

As far as I know the plan is to upstream it to Gitea as well, fwiw

The TOC is our owners team, but three are from the company and three are from the community.

The reason to say it as a disclaimer is because we are going to have some bias.

You can go look at the demo/site for Gitea if you want.

At the time of writing the interface will be identical.

Gogs -> Gitea -> Forgejo

Gitea is a hard-fork of Gogs, while Forgejo is (currently) a soft-fork of Gitea.

Possibly, yeah. Although Codeberg was already sort of similar, they had patches on top of Gitea, so assuming it doesn't change too drastically it may stay feasible for quite a while.

We have a list of maintainers, not all of whom can merge, so I apologize for getting this terminology incorrect. I have usually referred to frequent contributors as maintainers interchangeably, but I am glad to have it clarified.

Yes, frequent contributors.

Yes, but the soft fork discussions began a few days after the first blog post.

I have no real description for a "frequent maintainer", so maybe my wording was incorrect there.

I simply meant someone who contributes to the project often, but I don't have a concrete description for you considering "often" could also be subjective.

A soft fork means Forgejo will be periodically pulling from Gitea.

As far as I know they intend to upstream patches they make as well.

And yes, Gitea is still open source and MIT licensed.

As a quick clarification, Forgejo is a soft fork, not hard.

They will still benefit from upstream contributions.

The current plan, as far as I know it, is to continue on the OSS part predominantly.

The only parts that would not be, would be anything that comes from a contract and doesn't make sense to contribute back. For example, if a company wants some bespoke functionality that doesn't make sense in the main repo.

As a quick bias note, I am a Gitea maintainer, but a majority of frequent maintainers appear to be staying with Gitea so far.

That being said, Forgejo is a soft fork, so they will still benefit from those contributions.

Gitea has been working on federation, slowly but surely.

The way I read it is "company x has some internal system that they want to integrate with gitea" Where it may not make sense to contribute it back.

I didn't read this as open core.

The previous point from the quote was that the project remains MIT. The following point was that contracts favorable to those conditions would also be preferred and recommended.

At sounds like some contracts might need bespoke functionality to me.