[HN Gopher] Forgejo
___________________________________________________________________
Forgejo
Author : rubenv
Score : 144 points
Date : 2022-12-16 08:46 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (forgejo.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (forgejo.org)
| zx8080 wrote:
| Does any commit to forgejo benefit gitea ltd also? What about
| other way around (while gitea is still opensource - is it, btw?)
|
| Or how does a soft fork work?
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| ancapsfascists wrote:
| How do you pronounce this? Forge Joe? Forego? Forgeaux?
| xdennis wrote:
| /for'dZe.jo/
|
| It's Esperanto. It's supposed to be written "forgejo" (forgi=to
| forge, -ej-=place, -o=noun). The letter g (for the dZ sound,
| like Dj in Django, or J in John) is supposed to be written as
| gx without diacritics. But I assume "forgxejo" would have
| confused non-Esperantists even more.
| he_is_legend wrote:
| So ... forjejo ?
| F3nd0 wrote:
| Forjeyo, or rather For-Jay-(Y)o, I believe.
| I_complete_me wrote:
| To my ear (native English speaker) it sounds like: for j
| o
| F3nd0 wrote:
| Not exactly. The official way of substituting the circumflex
| is with 'h', not 'x', so it would be written as 'forghejo',
| which might actually guide English speakers to the correct
| pronunciation.
|
| (There are various systems to type without diacritics in
| Esperanto. Two of the most widely popular ones are to use the
| letters 'h' and 'x', and using either of those would be
| correct. But if one is to be regarded as the 'default'
| choice, it has to be the one with 'h', since that's been
| codified in the language's foundation since its early days.)
| mym1990 wrote:
| Something about a 'g' and a 'j' nearly side by side is really
| messing with my brain.
| bovermyer wrote:
| The article provides an mp4 that answers this question:
|
| https://forgejo.org/static/forgejo.mp4
| Kiro wrote:
| No way anyone will pronounce it that way.
| bovermyer wrote:
| Now that I know how it's supposed to be pronounced, that's
| how I'll pronounce it.
|
| So I just invalidated your argument, lol.
| Kiro wrote:
| You did not. It's an expression and doesn't actually mean
| "not a single person on the planet". A few anomalies do
| not make it untrue. Also, you saying you will is not the
| same as doing it.
| bovermyer wrote:
| I was being playful, calm yourself.
| F3nd0 wrote:
| Then again, you'd have to assume that people trying to
| follow official pronunciation are anomalies.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| msoucy wrote:
| It's how I instinctively pronounced it, because I
| recognized it as being Esperanto-adjacent, so...
| joobus wrote:
| It is not a well-picked name.
| Yuioup wrote:
| Fra-gi-lay
| moritonal wrote:
| To summarise "The Forgejo project is a community-driven free
| software project that aims to provide a code forge platform
| similar to GitHub and to be a drop-in replacement for Gitea."
| [deleted]
| cmjs wrote:
| Fediverse announcement:
| https://floss.social/@forgejo/109519186453892972
|
| > We're excited to announce the official launch of the #Forgejo
| project, a community-driven fork of #Gitea under the stewardship
| of @Codeberg. Check out https://forgejo.org/2022-12-15-hello-
| forgejo/ to learn more, including the motivation for the fork, as
| well as Codeberg's announcement at
| https://blog.codeberg.org/codeberg-launches-forgejo.html Come and
| get involved at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo or in our
| Matrix room https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-chat:matrix.org . We aim
| to be a fully inclusive community and everyone's participation is
| welcomed.
| rapnie wrote:
| The Codeberg blog post has been submitted here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581
| europeanguy wrote:
| What is gitea? Is it a Foss and self-hosted GitHub?
| jraph wrote:
| pretty much. Very lightweight and easy to setup too.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Benefits over (say) self-hosted Gitlab include:
|
| 1) Very, very operationally-simple deployments are available.
| It can run with just SQLite, no external services (e.g.
| database daemons, queuing systems, all the other stuff that
| GitLab likes to have) whatsoever.
|
| 2) It looks and feels more like Github, which is nice if you
| prefer that UI.
|
| 3) The site's far lighter-weight and snappier than GL, when
| you're using it.
|
| 4) You can (probably--workloads vary) serve 1-100 users with
| the dumbest possible deployment, running on a potato. It's
| far more resource-efficient than GL--which, it's not hard to
| be more resource efficient than GL, since it's an absolute
| beast, but Gitea comes in _way_ under it.
|
| Downsides:
|
| 1) Missing some stuff GL offers (like integrated CI)
|
| 2) Lacks some features that make serving at enormous scales
| (of the sort you almost certainly won't hit unless providing
| a Github/Gitlab-like service to the world) impractical.
|
| 3) Fewer just-works 3rd party integrations, especially
| commercial ones.
| rapnie wrote:
| Could you rename this to the blog title? "Forgejo: Beyond Coding.
| We Forge".
|
| This project is the soft fork of Gitea that was created in
| reaction to the open letter [0][1], after Gitea Ltd. was
| incorporated [2].
|
| [0] https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33372471
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33339421
| _tom_ wrote:
| Or better still, to something that actually lets people know
| what the topic is.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| As someone who hasn't been following this: what's the split look
| like between Forgejo and Gitea for where the contributors are
| going?
|
| Is is mostly going to Forgejo (other than Gitea Inc employees
| obviously), mostly staying with Gitea, a mix?
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| remram wrote:
| > a majority of frequent maintainers appear to be staying
| with Gitea
|
| Forgejo was officially launched _yesterday_...
|
| Also what's a "frequent maintainer"?
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| remram wrote:
| > someone who contributes to the project often
|
| A _frequent contributor_ then?
|
| "Maintainer" usually implies some sort of admin rights,
| e.g. the people merging in the contributions.
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| silverwind wrote:
| As a contributor, I will keep watching both and go wherever
| there seems to be more traction. I don't really care about the
| ongoing politics.
| jonwest wrote:
| Forgive me here, but what's the relationship between this to
| Gitea to Gogs? IIRC, Gogs was the original that was forked to
| become Gitea which has now been formed to become Forgejo? Or was
| it Gitea to Gogs?
| jolheiser wrote:
| Gogs -> Gitea -> Forgejo
|
| Gitea is a hard-fork of Gogs, while Forgejo is (currently) a
| soft-fork of Gitea.
| jonwest wrote:
| That's what I thought, thanks for the clarification! Kind of
| interesting how it's all progressed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-16 23:01 UTC)