In 2023 there has been cooperation between Forgejo and Gitea. This issue is an inventory of when, how and why it happened. A kind of post-mortem to discuss and analyze.
Only the most trivial bug fixes originating from Forgejo have been successfully contributed to Gitea, features or even security fixes are either stalled, re-written or rejected.
@CactiChameleon9 you wrote in another discussion:
This feels like an exaggeration, is there something specific here that points to there being a major problem?
Most of the close PRs I looked at seemed to have sensible enough reasons?
Is this a general impression or do you have specific examples in mind?
@earl-warren That was a general impression, I didn't comb through every single PR.
forgejo/governance#58 (comment) Aligned with what I saw
Edit: the above comment was moderated.
Only the most trivial bug fixes originating from Forgejo have been successfully contributed to Gitea, features or even security fixes are either stalled, re-written or rejected.
This feels like an exaggeration, is there something specific here that points to there being a major problem? Most of the close PRs I looked at seemed to have sensible enough reasons?
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28651
A pretty large fix, took quite a bit of research, and even more effort to convince upstream that their original approach was insufficient (they originally set the collation on one column only, leaving others potentially broken), only for the PR to be discarded and rewritten (without giving any credit) because I happen to be contracted by Codeberg. There was no sensible reason to rewrite this PR.
Prior to this, there's https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28627, where the rejection reason makes very little sense. Why would you reject a fix that removes an advice from the documentation that breaks the database? Subsequently, as far as I remember, they (the same maintainer, even) applied a very similar change to the documentation before implementing the full fix.
I had other PRs that were similarly discarded and stalled, like https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28585.
After these, and after being told by a prominent Gitea maintainer that they will not collaborate on anything coming from Forgejo (or by association, Codeberg), I stopped trying, not worth the effort, not when the other maintainers are silent on the matter too. I'm pretty darn sure that if I sent any other contributions I made to Forgejo to Gitea, they'd get the same treatment.
I guess the reason why you're not seeing that many PRs that are treated this way is because after a while, we stopped sending them. I certainly did.
A message from an account created to circumvent a ban from Forgejo spaces was deleted, send a mail to moderation@forgejo.org for more information.
@earl-warren That was a general impression, I didn't comb through every single PR.
Did the three examples in this discussion change your general impression?
The messages sent in both this issue and the governance agreement by a Gitea maintainer banned end of 2023 is also symptomatic of a failure to cooperate. Cooperation cannot happen at the same time as harassment and ad-hominem attacks, they are mutually exclusive.
A message was redacted by the Codeberg moderation team for repeatedly posting the same message over and over again, circumventing a ban established by a project.
We want to remind everyone that nice behaviour in project is key to collaboration. Things that have been discussed once do not need to be spammed again and again. Thank you for your understanding.
Please contact the Forgejo moderation team, they have received a copy of the removed messages.
A message from an account created to circumvent a ban from Forgejo spaces was deleted, send a mail to moderation@forgejo.org for more information.
No due date set.
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?