@feld while the MIT license in Gitea could be more aligned with the BSD mindset, the federation support and the fact that Codeberg people are doing a great job was a good reason to deploy it
I think the federation support is a dead end tbqh, and the Codeberg people are doing a terrible job IMHO as I've encountered many bugs that were fixed in upstream Gitea for a long time but they never merged.
Forgejo users are living off hype just like people accuse Elon/Tesla fanboys. They've made huge promises and can't deliver. It's been almost 3 years since the initial fork and there's nothing to show for it really, and the dev (ghost) started a couple years before that with Gitea PRs. (there are a few ActivityPub things already merged into Gitea, but disabled by default)
It's more about license evangelism at this point and wanting more control.
>It's more about license evangelism at this point and wanting more control. Same mindset that TDF had with LibreOffice and that probably didn't end up the way they wanted either.
As for Forgejo bug fixes that weren't backported from Gitea for a long time. I, like many people, migrated to Forgejo few months after the whole trust issue situation and was mostly happy for some time. My instance is mostly mirrors anyway. Then around version 8.0 there was a bug in Gitea where mirrored repositories with LFS files would balloon in size for no reason. The fix took I think few months to arrive in Gitea, but for some reason Forgejo developers didn't backport it to all supported versions at that time. It was only in the newest release. I think I was running version 10.0 at that time since that was the first version after the hard fork iirc. At least migrating back to Gitea was relatively easy since there weren't many DB migrations added yet at that time.
I think there were also some LDAP bug fixes that didn't get merged into Forgejo for a long time.
I didn't hit those LFS bugs but the LDAP bugs hit me. Forgejo might as well just remove LDAP entirely from their fork because their target audience are people who will never use it and it's clear the devs don't test it...
feld
in reply to BSD Cafe Announcements • • •Stefano Marinelli
in reply to feld • • •feld
in reply to Stefano Marinelli • • •Stefano Marinelli
in reply to feld • • •feld
in reply to Stefano Marinelli • • •Forgejo users are living off hype just like people accuse Elon/Tesla fanboys. They've made huge promises and can't deliver. It's been almost 3 years since the initial fork and there's nothing to show for it really, and the dev (ghost) started a couple years before that with Gitea PRs. (there are a few ActivityPub things already merged into Gitea, but disabled by default)
It's more about license evangelism at this point and wanting more control.
Phantasm
in reply to feld • • •>It's more about license evangelism at this point and wanting more control.
Same mindset that TDF had with LibreOffice and that probably didn't end up the way they wanted either.
As for Forgejo bug fixes that weren't backported from Gitea for a long time. I, like many people, migrated to Forgejo few months after the whole trust issue situation and was mostly happy for some time. My instance is mostly mirrors anyway. Then around version 8.0 there was a bug in Gitea where mirrored repositories with LFS files would balloon in size for no reason. The fix took I think few months to arrive in Gitea, but for some reason Forgejo developers didn't backport it to all supported versions at that time. It was only in the newest release. I think I was running version 10.0 at that time since that was the first version after the hard fork iirc. At least migrating back to Gitea was relatively easy since there weren't many DB migrations added yet at that time.
I think there were also some LDAP bug fixes that didn't get merged into Forgejo for a long time.
feld
in reply to Phantasm • • •Sir l33tname
in reply to feld • • •feld
in reply to Sir l33tname • • •