Confusing description on Gitea migration screen #916

HexagonCDN commented 2023年01月30日 01:29:08 +01:00

image


crystal commented 2023年01月30日 01:47:22 +01:00

Instances of Gitea in translations get changed to Forgejo, including this one. Right now this migration method is suitable for both Gitea and Forgejo.

Instances of Gitea in translations get changed to Forgejo, including this one. Right now this migration method is suitable for both Gitea and Forgejo.

rdwz commented 2023年01月30日 11:48:21 +01:00

@crystal I'm not sure what "getting changed in translation" means, but sure migration method works from both sources

nevertheless in spite of that we should consider to copy that migrations option to have one with own brand, just for self promoting our fork, but also to emphasize the difference and reduce confusion for average users.

related issue: Guideline: Forgejo-first orientation in communication #110

@crystal I'm not sure what "getting changed in translation" means, but sure migration method works from both sources nevertheless in spite of that we should consider to copy that migrations option to have one with own brand, just for self promoting our fork, but also to emphasize the difference and reduce confusion for average users. related issue: [Guideline: Forgejo-first orientation in communication #110](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/110)

crystal commented 2023年01月31日 03:14:26 +01:00

@redwerkz I never used those words in that order. I was referring to the i18n files which are altered to replace instances of Gitea with Forgejo at build time.

On the issue of changing the branding or having two buttons that do the same thing, I'm very indifferent. It would likely ease some confusion as to why Gitea's logo and name is present there when it then goes on to describe it as being for "other Forgejo instances." Since that migration method works for both, I don't think this is horribly confusing, just somewhat quirky. I believe all of the existing migration methods will be replaced by F3 when it's ready, so I personally don't think it's worth putting much effort into.

@redwerkz I never used those words in that order. I was referring to the i18n files which are altered to replace instances of `Gitea` with `Forgejo` at build time. On the issue of changing the branding or having two buttons that do the same thing, I'm very indifferent. It would likely ease some confusion as to why Gitea's logo and name is present there when it then goes on to describe it as being for "other Forgejo instances." Since that migration method works for both, I don't think this is horribly confusing, just somewhat quirky. I believe all of the existing migration methods will be replaced by F3 when it's ready, so I personally don't think it's worth putting much effort into.

HexagonCDN commented 2023年01月31日 03:37:07 +01:00

Have something like Gitea/Forgejo?

Have something like `Gitea/Forgejo`?

crystal commented 2023年01月31日 03:49:51 +01:00

sure, sounds like minimal effort

sure, sounds like minimal effort

HexagonCDN commented 2023年01月31日 04:04:04 +01:00

And the icon probably will be :gitea: / :forgejo:

And the icon probably will be :gitea: / :forgejo:

crystal commented 2023年01月31日 07:36:12 +01:00

that sounds like more effort

that sounds like more effort

rdwz commented 2023年01月31日 10:38:57 +01:00

@redwerkz I never used those words in that order. I was referring to the i18n files which are altered to replace instances of Gitea with Forgejo at build time.

sorry i didn't meant quoting your words. but myself trying to understand.

just somewhat quirky.

bad ux as a feature?

I personally don't think it's worth putting much effort into.

the effort of duplicating a button?

> @redwerkz I never used those words in that order. I was referring to the i18n files which are altered to replace instances of `Gitea` with `Forgejo` at build time. sorry i didn't meant quoting your words. but myself trying to understand. > just somewhat quirky. bad ux as a feature? > I personally don't think it's worth putting much effort into. the effort of duplicating a button?

crystal commented 2023年01月31日 11:10:06 +01:00

sorry i didn't meant quoting your words. but myself trying to understand.

Sorry, didn't intend to be defensive there, just trying to clarify what I meant by that.

bad ux as a feature?

That was not the intended implication. I've been using Linux on the desktop for well over a decade, so I'm used to dealing with a bit of UI jank here and there. I don't think it's a feature, it's just not really a big deal either.

the effort of duplicating a button?

I don't think it's quite as simple as just "duplicating a button". The buttons are generated procedurally by the template

> sorry i didn't meant quoting your words. but myself trying to understand. Sorry, didn't intend to be defensive there, just trying to clarify what I meant by that. > bad ux as a feature? That was not the intended implication. I've been using Linux on the desktop for well over a decade, so I'm used to dealing with a bit of UI jank here and there. I don't think it's a feature, it's just not really a big deal either. > the effort of duplicating a button? I don't think it's quite as simple as _just_ "duplicating a button". The buttons are generated procedurally by [the template](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/templates/repo/migrate/migrate.tmpl)

fsologureng commented 2023年01月31日 16:53:49 +01:00

I think this deserves an issue in forgejo because the literal translation of "Gitea instances" to "Forgejo instances" should be an exception here. Also, I'm not entirely sure that F3 also replaces the migration of Gitea instances. Maybe they will end up being two different options eventually.

I think this deserves an issue in forgejo because the literal translation of "Gitea instances" to "Forgejo instances" should be an exception here. Also, I'm not entirely sure that F3 also replaces the migration of Gitea instances. Maybe they will end up being two different options eventually.

Gusted commented 2024年03月30日 15:06:33 +01:00

This has already been fixed forgejo/forgejo#321

This has already been fixed https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/321