Consider re-enabling push/pull mirroring for external repos #1951

CodingMonkey commented 2025年05月28日 06:33:23 +02:00

Comment

Hi,

For context, the creation of new push/pull mirrors is disabled on Codeberg, because of unreasonable usage. A feature request on the Gitea issue tracker to add support for an option for push/pull mirrors as public projects only has been issued. In parallel, an exchange on the Forgejo bug tracker has happened.

As it currently seems unlikely for the Gitea devs to focus on this feature and because Codeberg has apparently acquired some additional server resources since the decision to disable mirroring a few years ago, I wondered, whether the mirrors could be enabled again on Codeberg.

### Comment Hi, For context, the [creation of new push/pull mirrors is disabled on Codeberg](https://blog.codeberg.org/mirror-repos-easily-created-consuming-resources-forever.html), because of unreasonable usage. A [feature request on the Gitea issue tracker](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/34468) to add support for an option for push/pull mirrors as public projects only has been issued. In parallel, an [exchange on the Forgejo bug tracker](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/7970) has happened. As it currently seems unlikely for the Gitea devs to focus on this feature and because Codeberg has apparently acquired some additional server resources since the decision to disable mirroring a few years ago, I wondered, whether the mirrors could be enabled again on Codeberg.

Gusted commented 2025年05月28日 13:21:24 +02:00

@CodingMonkey wrote in #1951 (comment):

As it currently seems unlikely for the Gitea devs to focus

Codeberg does not run on Gitea, it runs on Forgejo. A feature request should be made to Forgejo instead, I think this would be accepted.

@CodingMonkey wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1951#issue-1649052: > As it currently seems unlikely for the Gitea devs to focus Codeberg does not run on Gitea, it runs on Forgejo. A feature request should be made to Forgejo instead, I think this would be accepted.

CodingMonkey commented 2025年05月28日 13:58:31 +02:00

To be honest, I only relied on the Codeberg's blog post, where an upstream implementation of the feature was suggested.

And while your suggestion makes sense, I'm not sure it will be much considered by the devs of Forgejo, as it was not really proposed as such in the issue I opened.
I will still advocate for it though.

To be honest, I only relied on the Codeberg's blog post, where an upstream implementation of the feature was suggested. And while your suggestion makes sense, I'm not sure it will be much considered by the devs of Forgejo, as it was not really proposed as such in the issue I opened. I will still advocate for it though.