[HN Gopher] Gitea 1.19
___________________________________________________________________
Gitea 1.19
Author : silverwind
Score : 144 points
Date : 2023-03-20 14:28 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.gitea.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.gitea.io)
| Reitet00 wrote:
| Wow, what a great changelog. I wish more software projects would
| take time to present their work to users like that.
| dave78 wrote:
| What are the current thoughts on Gitea vs Forgejo? I'm thinking
| of migrating from a self-hosted Gitlab to one of them in the near
| future. The way Gitea was taken over leaves a bad taste in my
| mouth so I'm leaning towards Forgejo, but it's not really clear
| to me if that's the right choice.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| I am personally not a fan of Forgejo relicensing (to AGPL).
| Makes the "soft fork" aspect so much harder, because anything
| contributed to Forgejo cannot be easily cherry picked onto
| Gitea.
| jpace121 wrote:
| Forgejo currently is only applying branding changes and
| currently plans on being a soft fork. I think it's existence is
| a good thing for the ecosystem (if Gitea the Company did
| something wonky, there will be an organized group already doing
| releases ready to go), but I'm not sure there is a huge benefit
| in running it, at this juncture.
| dave78 wrote:
| The other discussion in this thread has convinced me that for
| now, the momentum seems to be with Gitea, so I'll probably
| lean towards that. I'm still disappointed in how the whole
| situation was handled, though, and it leaves me wondering
| what other changes will be around the corner.
| justin_oaks wrote:
| I remember there being a big stink about Gitea, so much so that
| it was forked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581
|
| I don't use Gitea, but if I were to start today would there be a
| proper reason to avoid Gitea?
| Macha wrote:
| Gitea was taken from a community run project to an corporate
| owned one to allow for an open core future. Currently there's
| been no actions taken that negatively affect the open project,
| but the door is now open for a "This isn't working for our
| company, we're now going to SSPL" style move in the future.
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| djha-skin wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35233168
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| legends2k wrote:
| Nice to see Blender team being thanked as major contributors for
| Gitea :)
| techknowlogick wrote:
| The Blender Foundation has been wonderful! Among their many PRs
| to this release, one of the big ones was scoped labels.
| sph wrote:
| Why is gitea, a self-hosted Github competitor, hosting its source
| on Github?
|
| Not a lot of dog-fooding going on over there.
| xx_ns wrote:
| They've been meaning to migrate for a while now, but have had
| various blockers.
|
| https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Ahhh this removes reverse proxy auth for the api!
|
| This is horrible!
|
| While reverse proxy auth should be disabled by default, this is
| critical. This breaking change makes gitea unsuitable for me
| going forward.
|
| Reverse proxy auth is perfectly secure when correctly setup and
| is sensible in many configurations.
| joencott wrote:
| Not enough people are talking about this, as soon as the
| company took over they started to remove functionality. Shame
| on them.
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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).
| remram wrote:
| It seems it was only removed from the API. Are you really using
| it there? Can you say more about your use case?
| frodowtf wrote:
| Wow. Great progress! Recently, I was wondering why gitea does not
| have a GitHub Actions alternative. What a timing.
|
| BTW, a colleague of mine told me that GitHub Actions wasn't
| supposed to be a CI/CD alternative at the time when it was
| released. I couldn't find any note on that online. Is it true?
| Reitet00 wrote:
| FWIW it's possible to use Woodpecker as an alternative to
| Actions. I guess Gitea Actions will be more tightly coupled
| with Gitea.
| techknowlogick wrote:
| I was just telling someone else how great Woodpecker is.
|
| The protocol that Actions runners use to report logs/job
| statuses back to Gitea is an open protocol that maybe one day
| woodpecker could use it for enhanced integration with Gitea,
| so you could use woodpecker but have the experience be next
| to your code.
|
| Disclaimer: I am listed as a maintainer of Woodpecker. I am a
| also part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea
| thiht wrote:
| > GitHub Actions wasn't supposed to be a CI/CD alternative at
| the time when it was released
|
| Not sure what you mean by that, what was it supposed to be
| then?
| fullstop wrote:
| Since the link doesn't really tell you what it is, this is a self
| hosted Git service written in Go. It looks a lot like GitHub.
| cacois wrote:
| I've used gitea for years in my homelab - so far great for my
| non-exterprise needs.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Really excited for Gitea Actions!! Will probably look into
| switching from GitHub now. Wasn't a fan of drone or having to
| maintain the integration with a separate CI/CD system.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Don't do it yet otherwise you will fill disappointed by
| teething problems. Do it in 3 months and then - if they keep
| the current dynamics - you will be able to work with GA more
| comfortably and only encounter minor bugs.
| geek_at wrote:
| It's mindblowing for me how many of the features I love from
| github are now in gitea. Actions, email replies, scoped lables,
| fine-tunable access tokens, secrets and also the ability to
| push local git repos to gitea without having to create them via
| the web interface first.
| jamesu wrote:
| Gitea actions looks neat though I'm not sure how you are meant
| to run windows or mac-centric workflows with it since the
| runtime (nektos/act) seems to require docker. If its not
| possible that might limit its usefulness somewhat...
| techknowlogick wrote:
| One contributor to nektos/act and Gitea's act_runner
| (ChristopherHX) contributor "host" mode to act, which allows
| you to run without docker.
|
| Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea project, the TOC, and am
| employed to work on Gitea
| candiddevmike wrote:
| I think this is the PR:
| https://github.com/nektos/act/pull/1293
|
| This is perfect for my needs. Thank you to the Gitea folks
| for getting this added/integrated!
| KronisLV wrote:
| > Wasn't a fan of drone or having to maintain the integration
| with a separate CI/CD system.
|
| I'm in the opposite camp, especially when this separate system
| is as simple as Drone CI or Woodpecker CI (I mostly use the
| former, but the latter is more permissive, license wise). I
| came to holding this view after I ran into some issues by using
| a self-hosted GitLab Omnibus install previously:
| https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/goodbye-gitlab-hello-gitea-...
|
| Using separate systems for working with the code, doing CI/CD
| and storing artifacts made each of the parts easier to update,
| limit the resources available to each, as well as limited the
| fallout when something _does_ go wrong - say, still being able
| to interact with the codebase, even if the container repo is
| temporarily unavailable, or vice versa.
|
| That said, in a few years I might come around to holding the
| opposite views again - frankly, both approaches are good and
| seeing the Gitea Actions project is nice! Though I'll also
| acknowledge that some might claim that all-in-one solutions are
| sometimes a bit half-baked, a criticism that I've heard of
| GitLab in the past (though honestly they're also fine,
| especially for the more enterprise settings, where you have
| beefier servers and a few people to manage the install).
| bioemerl wrote:
| [flagged]
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| That's a pretty strong statement to make without backing it up
| with some evidence of foul play, or at least evidence of these
| links.
| bioemerl wrote:
| If you have evidence of foul play it's already far far too
| late to do anything.
|
| With authoritarian nations and their ability to control and
| steal your projects, you assume guilty until proven innocent.
| You should require there be a real audit before you trust
| gitea.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| Half of gitea's contributors are from Europe. Wait until
| you learn how much "Chinese" code is in the Linux kernel
| these days.
|
| This anti-Chinese hysteria is hilarious to watch from the
| sidelines, honestly. A few months ago there was a comment
| on HN by some American whose company was rewriting their
| frontend when they learned that antd (a React component
| toolkit) was developed by a Chinese company.
|
| https://github.com/ant-design/ant-design
| bioemerl wrote:
| The people who accept pull requests and run the
| infrastructure of the Linux kernel aren't based on China,
| else I'd reject it as well.
|
| > A few months ago there was a comment on HN by some
| American whose company was rewriting their frontend when
| they learned that antd (a React component toolkit) was
| developed by a Chinese company.
|
| This is a good move. We're removing Lenovo laptops from
| our infrastructure here.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| Also Chinese author != CCP. You can read the source code and
| build binaries from the provided source.
| bioemerl wrote:
| With a large project unless a large auditor goes into your
| code and reads it with a fine comb it's not a good idea to
| have blind trust in it.
|
| And Chinese author does mean CCP, assuming they live in
| China they are almost certainly able to be compromised and
| it is a bad decision to trust them with something as
| valuable as your whole code base.
| pcstl wrote:
| Care to elaborate? I'd like to see some evidence on that.
| bioemerl wrote:
| When we are talking about something that can be set up to
| silently grab code, suddenly delete your projects, if you
| wait until there is foul play you're waiting too long. It's
| like waiting for evidence of a gunshot wound.
| djha-skin wrote:
| I'm super excited Gitea is becoming better and better. Gotta be
| honest though; the really exciting feature I'm waiting for is
| ActivityPub[1] support. That will really make my single gitea
| instance _much_ more interesting, when I can accept PRs from
| other instances and make them to theirs.
|
| A lot of comments about "Forgejo". In short: meh. Not a big
| deal[2]. I'll be sticking with Gitea.
|
| 1: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/14186
|
| 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35233168
| lagniappe wrote:
| is it for-guh-joe or for-jeh-ho?
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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
| barnabee wrote:
| For info: there was some drama a while back [0], [1] and some (a
| lot?) of the community/devs went to https://forgejo.org/
|
| Seemed to me like they had a point and it's worth considering
| following that project [2] instead.
|
| [0] https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33372471
|
| [2] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Will be interesting to compare the velocity between the two.
| Can a community fork keep pace and possibly even innovate more
| than the commercial upstream?
|
| There have been a few cases of open source collectives/coops
| that do what Gitea does but distribute the profits to
| contributors equally, wonder if any of those have reached
| sustainability.
| gempir wrote:
| The issue is Forgejo doesn't really have the know-how or
| capabilities to drive this project forward.
|
| In the past months all they have done is rebrand Gitea and some
| minor fixes, but upstream (gitea) has added a huge number of
| features and merged tons of valuable pull requests. So are they
| just going to continuously merge upstream into their fork and
| do nothing besides that?
|
| The platform, Codeberg might be "well" funded but not to
| maintain another extra project and develop new features for it.
|
| I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big
| task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and
| the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some
| money on the side with that.
|
| Compare these merged PRs:
|
| Forgejo
| https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=...
|
| Gitea https://github.com/go-
| gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclose...
| tjoff wrote:
| > _I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It 's
| a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with
| Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to
| make some money on the side with that._
|
| That seems completely irrelevant and orthogonal to the
| outrage though?
| dboreham wrote:
| Quick note that the forked project doesn't have the CI feature
| released in 1.9, which is the primary subject of this thread.
| dave78 wrote:
| I assume they will follow up with their own 1.19 release
| soon. The blog below indicates they will have the CI feature.
|
| https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/
| joencott wrote:
| It is sad to see that the forgejo team accept and promote
| the built-in CI server. When the PR was first made they
| said they shouldn't trust the code, and will stick with
| woodpecker.
| remram wrote:
| It seems that they have "soft forked" act as well. I worry
| that they will spend more time maintaining all their forks
| than doing any original development...
| dave78 wrote:
| Gitea soft forked act as well, from
| https://gitea.com/gitea/act:
|
| "This is a custom fork of nektos/act, for the purpose of
| serving act_runner.
|
| It cannot be used as command line tool anymore, but only
| as a library.
|
| It's a soft fork, which means that it will tracking the
| latest release of nektos/act."
| remram wrote:
| I see, removed that from my comment then, sorry. I looked
| at their go.mod and assumed.
|
| Now I worry even more about everyone maintaining forks of
| everything rather than doing original development.
|
| I wonder what differences there are between Gitea's and
| Forgejo's forks, and also why they couldn't work with
| upstream.
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| remram wrote:
| The problem is that at this point they are just re-publishing
| the Gitea releases with a different name and branding. I'm all
| for forks when they become necessary, but is there anything
| there yet?
| RealStickman_ wrote:
| From what I, as an outsider, could see, it seemed like most
| contributors stayed with gitea.
|
| At this point forgejo is just a soft-fork as well, so there
| really isn't any reason or hurry to switch (yet) in my opinion.
|
| Though it did stand out that they are migrating stuff from
| gitea.io to gitea.com, as mentioned in this blog post.
| jolheiser wrote:
| 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.
| RealStickman_ wrote:
| Honestly, it's a stupid response from me, but it did feel
| like a reminder of the recent changes.
| techknowlogick wrote:
| No worries, that's totally understandable. The change was
| made mostly for practical reasons, to be able to upgrade
| infrastructure piece by piece. So both new and old infra
| could run at the same time while it was switched. I'm
| actually writing a blog post detailing the history of our
| infra, but the TLDR is that too much money and person
| effort was being spent on managing the infra.
|
| Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed
| to work on Gitea.
| mariusmg wrote:
| >and some (a lot?) of the community/devs went to
| https://forgejo.org/
|
| The Forjero commits prove that this is incorrect (they are
| still busy removing Gitea branding related things from their
| code). It's going to take a long time until they begin to match
| the Gitea momentum.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > It's going to take a long time until they begin to match
| the Gitea momentum.
|
| I'd hope so! I am not interested in many of the features
| being added to Gitea (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1]). I
| want a light binary I can continue to self-host on a
| Raspberry Pi Zero that doesn't have Docker installed.
|
| 1. I feel Gitea is being positioned as a competitor to GitHub
| and GitLab - good for them! However, the previous iteration
| was close to perfect for my needs, albeit not very
| monetizable. I'm glad it got forked and will be side-grading
| to Forgejo.
| joencott wrote:
| > (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1])
|
| The momentum stalled when the community was plagued
| recently by toxic behaviour of one of the members who
| started the fork. He had to step down from the "well-being"
| team[1], bullied a moderation team member into stepping
| down[2] and forced him to disclose information from a
| private chat[3].
|
| Now he is trying to "reboot" the community to erase his
| previous bad behaviour [4]
|
| Forgejo members are also unhappy about conflicts of
| interest of this individual [5]
|
| The Forgejo community is stronger than this one individual,
| so it will succeed.
|
| [1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f79
| 372023...
|
| [2]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomm
| ent-82...
|
| [3]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomm
| ent-82...
|
| [4]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187
|
| [5]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomme
| nt-843...
| djha-skin wrote:
| It's a soft fork though, so the Forgejo folks are still relying
| on the Gitea team for features like this.
|
| The Forgejo folks seem to object to Gitea on the basis that a
| company took the project over. I think it was that an
| _American_ company took it over, not that a company took it
| over. They didn 't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and
| backed the fork with a European organization instead of an
| American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it
| still smacks as hypocritical.
|
| I'll be sticking with Gitea for the foreseeable future.
|
| 1: https://codeberg.org/
| bityard wrote:
| > I think it was that an American company took it over,
|
| No, Gitea Ltd is a new _Hong Kong_ for-profit company. No
| American companies are involved in any of this whatsoever.
|
| The Gitea head honcho claims to be in Shanghai, China:
| https://gitea.com/lunny
|
| > not that a company took it over.
|
| No, the Forgejo folks were angry that the previously
| community-run project was taken into ownership of a for-
| profit company, without any notice, and against previous
| promises: https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social
|
| > They didn't AGPL forego
|
| Uh, they CAN'T relicense it to AGPL or anything else. The
| Gitea authors and contributors still hold the copyright on
| the code, which is MIT-licensed.
| joencott wrote:
| Forgejo did relicense, there was a democratic vote and the
| it was agreed to finally relicense to a license that
| respects user's freedoms
| djha-skin wrote:
| Very cool if true, but it appears they haven't done it
| yet: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forg
| ejo/LICE...
|
| Could someone post a link to the decision?
| jonas-w wrote:
| https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/183
|
| I think, this seems to be the discussion everyone is
| talking about
| remram wrote:
| You can license your fork under a different compatible
| license (which is most other licenses, in the case of MIT).
| They can't prevent people from using the versions that were
| already released under MIT though (and continue being
| released under MIT by Gitea).
| lucideer wrote:
| > _I think it was that an American company took it over, not
| that a company took it over. They didn 't AGPL forego, they
| just soft forked and backed the fork with a European
| organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes,
| the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical._
|
| Straining to assume good faith here but this seems very
| likely to be wilful misinfo - particularly given the
| emphasis. The reasons for the fork are very clearly stated in
| the lettter linked in the comment you're replying to: it's
| about community decision-making procedures (which have been
| removed during the incorporation). It's also about profit:
| the US corp is for-profit.
|
| Secondly, not only are Codeberg a non-profit, they also
| adopted the project _after_ the fork. That wasn 't a part of
| the original letter nor discussion. They don't control the
| project (see aforementioned objections on the basis of
| democratic input) - they're a host & benefactor.
| jolheiser wrote:
| > _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.
| infamia wrote:
| > I think it was that an American company took it over, not
| that a company took it over.
|
| A small clarification, Gitea Ltd. which owns the trademark
| and domain is (apparently) based in China.
|
| https://forum.forgefriends.org/t/gitea-ltd-company/917/5
| joencott wrote:
| Forgejo is AGPL, there was just a vote and the community came
| out strongly to say they disagree with commercial usage of
| Forgejo! I am so happy they did that!
| jszymborski wrote:
| I think the concern was of corporate exploitation in the name
| of profits, in which case I don't think forking and having a
| non-profit at the helm hypocritical. It's actually a very
| defensive position to prevent corporate interests from
| snatching up the project once more.
| [deleted]
| warent wrote:
| very excited about Actions. For several months I've been using a
| home server Gitea for a Unity project version control, because
| the project size is far too large for github/gitlab etc.
|
| So far everything about it has been excellent, and it's only
| getting better!
| techknowlogick wrote:
| That's an awesome use-case! Are you using LFS in Gitea too with
| Unity?
|
| Are you working on anything publicly available? I'm looking for
| something new to play :)
|
| Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed to
| work on Gitea.
| Kelamir wrote:
| As a novice at self-hosting, I previously attempted to use it,
| but got stuck as I didn't understand MySQL, and learning it just
| for Gitea was too much. However, I've had some progress with with
| another database recently, so I would like to give Gitea another
| try soon.
| dual_dingo wrote:
| For small personal deployments, using SQLite as a database is
| usually sufficient. This means you don't need a fullblown SQL
| server, instead the whole database consists of a single file.
| geek_at wrote:
| can confirm have about 20 repos and 1 org in my gitea and I
| never have problems with loading speeds
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-20 23:03 UTC)