Remember, if all you need is a git remote to push to somewhere via ssh, `git init --bare` on your server should be available and is solid if you don't need a web interface. Now you've got something you can push to on a shared server.
Unless you really also want a web interface, issue tracking, et. al. Then, use any of these fine tools. Go wild!
I don't really need the web interface, but the actions are useful. Automatically building updated docker images and software packages is enough to accept the gitea complications, but gitlab is way too heavy IMHO
Actions support running on times. Sure, I could wire up a Rube Goldberg of systemd user timers and user units that trigger on hooks or I can store some yaml in the repo and it just works (tm)(r).
Sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and for me, doing it all custom isn't worth it for my home projects.
I feel like this is one of those topics where compromise is futile. I use GitLab at work and use plain git on personal projects. I don't like spending time on tools that aren't either teaching me or paying me.
Unfortunately, seems like this is Forgejo's best suggestion on how to compare the two: https://i.imgur.com/j1665QR.png. Not sure that page helps much if you're not already bought in to a free-software-absolutist mindset
I wish they had an actual feature comparison list. I've been trying to find anyone who can give me a list of non-trivial differences between the two; so far it's always either FUD about Gitea's governance and security structure or ForgeFed. The former has made me rather wary of the project[0] and the latter has been stagnate for years and I'm no longer convinced anything will come from it. Otherwise it's just silence.
Personally I thought Forgejo was doing better work on their actions runner for a while from casual changelog browsing but Gitea's been putting a lot of work into theirs. Otherwise it mostly still looks like a soft-fork in practice to me.
[0] Not that I'm thrilled with Gitea's semi-open-core setup and company but they make it seem like they're kicking puppies and dangling features over non-enterprise users head before snatching them away.
Would you also argue that the technical quality, efficiency, capacity, performance etc. of a piece of machinery, too, is way less important than the social and political values of its manufacturer? Say, a piece of medical equipment used in a hospital to keep a patient alive.
> This release contains security fixes. To give everyone time to upgrade, details will be added to this post in about a week.
Is this something that has been happening for a while or a new trend due to LLM concerns? I understand the reasoning, it just made me do a double take because I haven't really seen that before.
With Gitea specifically or in general? A lot of different software has silently included security fixes in updates combined with other changes and then later revealed what security fixes were made or stayed quiet about it all together, since long before LLMs could analyze changes.
Security researchers and malware authors would reverse engineer software updates of proprietary software, and scrutinise source code changes of open source projects to find secretly shipped security fixes.
(bias note: I am a project lead of Gitea) this approach is based on what peertube has been doing, and is being attempted as an alternative approach to what we've been doing previously due to feedback we've been receiving from the community.
Remember, if all you need is a git remote to push to somewhere via ssh, `git init --bare` on your server should be available and is solid if you don't need a web interface. Now you've got something you can push to on a shared server.
Unless you really also want a web interface, issue tracking, et. al. Then, use any of these fine tools. Go wild!
I don't really need the web interface, but the actions are useful. Automatically building updated docker images and software packages is enough to accept the gitea complications, but gitlab is way too heavy IMHO
You can do that via hooks. You could probably even manage to hook up a CI engine like woodpecker via hooks and do it entirely that way.
Gitea or Forgejo with actions is almost certainly easier, but it's possible to do it with pure git.
Actions support running on times. Sure, I could wire up a Rube Goldberg of systemd user timers and user units that trigger on hooks or I can store some yaml in the repo and it just works (tm)(r).
Sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and for me, doing it all custom isn't worth it for my home projects.
That's an interesting perspective.
I feel like this is one of those topics where compromise is futile. I use GitLab at work and use plain git on personal projects. I don't like spending time on tools that aren't either teaching me or paying me.
Something like gitolite has the benefits of access control... act can hell with actions. But I like the webif approach
It is kind of nuts how seemingly a generation of programmers came to think Git = GitHub
For anyone curious why they should choose one over the other:
https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/
Unfortunately, seems like this is Forgejo's best suggestion on how to compare the two: https://i.imgur.com/j1665QR.png. Not sure that page helps much if you're not already bought in to a free-software-absolutist mindset
I wish they had an actual feature comparison list. I've been trying to find anyone who can give me a list of non-trivial differences between the two; so far it's always either FUD about Gitea's governance and security structure or ForgeFed. The former has made me rather wary of the project[0] and the latter has been stagnate for years and I'm no longer convinced anything will come from it. Otherwise it's just silence.
Personally I thought Forgejo was doing better work on their actions runner for a while from casual changelog browsing but Gitea's been putting a lot of work into theirs. Otherwise it mostly still looks like a soft-fork in practice to me.
[0] Not that I'm thrilled with Gitea's semi-open-core setup and company but they make it seem like they're kicking puppies and dangling features over non-enterprise users head before snatching them away.
deleted
Of course I wouldn't recommend taking the conclusion. But it is a valuable view of some differences that the Forgejo developers perceive as valuable.
Thanks! Currently going through this decision process myself.
I suggest browsing through the release notes of the last 4-5 versions to see what you like more.
I'd argue project values, license and health are way more important.
Release notes would inform my view of project health and priorities
The project’s values as well, much more so than any “values statement”. The proof is in the pudding, not in the marketing speak.
Would you also argue that the technical quality, efficiency, capacity, performance etc. of a piece of machinery, too, is way less important than the social and political values of its manufacturer? Say, a piece of medical equipment used in a hospital to keep a patient alive.
I have a feeling that nobody will die (most likely) for choosing forgejo or gitea... Apples and oranges...
But from the downvoting, announcing evaluation of these is contentious. Oh HN!
> This release contains security fixes. To give everyone time to upgrade, details will be added to this post in about a week.
Is this something that has been happening for a while or a new trend due to LLM concerns? I understand the reasoning, it just made me do a double take because I haven't really seen that before.
With Gitea specifically or in general? A lot of different software has silently included security fixes in updates combined with other changes and then later revealed what security fixes were made or stayed quiet about it all together, since long before LLMs could analyze changes.
Security researchers and malware authors would reverse engineer software updates of proprietary software, and scrutinise source code changes of open source projects to find secretly shipped security fixes.
(bias note: I am a project lead of Gitea) this approach is based on what peertube has been doing, and is being attempted as an alternative approach to what we've been doing previously due to feedback we've been receiving from the community.
Is not describing the feedback part of the feedback you got? You're kind of playing into Forgejo's narrative about governance.
Bizarre policy. Any bad guys unaware of the security implications are analyzing the patch diffs as we speak, so this seems nonsensical to me.
Yeah maybe it made sense in the past, but not in the age of AI.
Why does Gitea uses (hosts on etc.) Github and not on Gitea.
they skipped 26 major versions, ai is truly amazing
> Gitea drops the historical 1. prefix from its version numbers, so this release is 28.0.0 rather than 1.28.0.
Holy shit. They went from 1.27.3 to 28.0.0. These guys are hauling ass
They're even ahead of Apple. macOS 27? Nah, how about Gitea 28?
But far behind Firefox and Google Chrome.
Not for long if the next release will be Gitea 290 instead of 29.