It's a tangent, but I think it's interesting that Gitea started trying to self host in Feb 2017 (https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029) and hasn't got there yet (based on how active the github issues/PR page are).
https://about.gitea.com/ offers me a "free cloud trial" and otherwise sounds very like other web front ends to git. So like github, except they don't trust it themselves.
In contract forgejo has "Self-hosted alternative to GitHub" written in big letters on the landing page. https://codeberg.org/forgejo is indeed self hosted.
But then right below that on the Gitea page you linked they list their docker pulls statistics, which is primarily the self hosted community. Mixed messages indeed
Read some details in the issue and you will get an idea why they haven't migrated yet
The size of the issues in their repo is huge! Especially when including media like photos and videos.
Also funding hosting for such a thing is challenging, AFAIK they found a Chinese sponsor, but some of the community weren't so pleased with them.
You don't have to archive every last media and binary file. The size will only increase as time goes on, and so too will the expense of maintaining the archive. Better to start chewing now rather than wait for Microsoft to finish off GitLab and look for other competitors to demolish. I think they will be quick to realize they have one playing around in their front yard.
(I'm not part of the Gitea community, just a casual user of gitea since the gogs days, so please take this for what it's worth -) I don't understand why Forges (and what feels like a large part of the free software community) is against corporate sponsorship.
The stated goal of '"ensuring the long term success of the project" by allowing companies "unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly
' seems extremely reasonable to a passerby and didn't seem to come with any strings attached, so why the knee jerk reaction of forking the project?
> Originally the project's governance, spelled out in an earlier version of its CONTRIBUTING.md file, specified the project would have three "owners" responsible for keeping development ""healthy"". The actual responsibilities and rights of the owners were vague, but they were to be elected yearly by Gitea's maintainers ""who decide with a simple voting model which contributions get accepted and who will play the owner role"".
> That community of maintainers did not get a vote when Gitea's domain and trademarks were quietly transferred by two of Gitea's "owners" (Lunny Xiao and Matti Ranta) to a for-profit business called Gitea Ltd. The announcement said this was to meet the goal of ""ensuring the long term success of the project"" by allowing companies ""unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution"" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly.
You might want to take a look at this thread. It's particularly spicy. Seems like the Forgejo founder is being disingenuous (though the Gitea founders are not much better either). Everybody is just in it for the money.
Calling it niche is a bit misleading. It has a clear and useful purpose, which is essentially the same as Github and Gitlab. But it's free! I'm not using it now but the couple of times I have, it seemed good.
So GitLab, Gitea, Fossil, ForgeJo, OneDev... the field is so balkanized, and so many of them are almost kinda sorta compatible with each other but not quite. The choices are intimidating because there's always the fear that you'll invest in a platform created by a small team and then be left orphaned if it fails.
...
So, how do you pronounce Forgejo? Forge-Joe? Forjei-ho? Forjei-o?
Yeah, using an Esperanto word, and in particular one where the letters have very different pronounciation from English (the J is pronounced like Y and the E is not silent) seems like a bad move given that realistically the software world is in English.
People who are not already using one of the non-Github forges have no clue what a "software forge" is. It's a very niche bit of jargon, and these days most developers are not even familiar with sourceforge.
>> Starting with Gitea 1.19, Gitea Actions are available as a built-in CI/CD solution. ... It is similar and compatible to GitHub Actions, and its name is inspired by it too.
https://about.gitea.com/ offers me a "free cloud trial" and otherwise sounds very like other web front ends to git. So like github, except they don't trust it themselves.
In contract forgejo has "Self-hosted alternative to GitHub" written in big letters on the landing page. https://codeberg.org/forgejo is indeed self hosted.