32
41
Fork
You've already forked website
53

Improve FAQ #375

Merged
earl-warren merged 6 commits from n0toose/forgejo-actual-website:improve-faq into main 2024年01月09日 22:23:51 +01:00
Member
Copy link
  • Improve text clarity
  • Summarize Forgejo's structures and repositories
  • Redirect people to "Comparison to Gitea" page when applicable
  • Clarify Codeberg's and Forgejo's relationship better
  • Update information regarding licensing
  • Introduce minor formatting improvements
  • When referring to licenses, use SPDX links
  • Explain sustainability better
  • Separate project-related questions and user-related questions
    (This should be split off into another article later, probably)
- Improve text clarity - Summarize Forgejo's structures and repositories - Redirect people to "Comparison to Gitea" page when applicable - Clarify Codeberg's and Forgejo's relationship better - Update information regarding licensing - Introduce minor formatting improvements - When referring to licenses, use SPDX links - Explain sustainability better - Separate project-related questions and user-related questions (This should be split off into another article later, probably)

@n0toose can I suggest creating one PR per FAQ item? I was about to comment on this PR but the realized it would be a very long discussion. I think about half the items can be merged within a day. And the other require a more substantial discussion.

What do you think?

@n0toose can I suggest creating one PR per FAQ item? I was about to comment on this PR but the realized it would be a very long discussion. I think about half the items can be merged within a day. And the other require a more substantial discussion. What do you think?
Author
Member
Copy link

@dachary Sure thing. Get your change in first, and I'll try to create succeeding PRs that remove redundant content (as well as try to follow your way of thinking as you described it here: #386 (comment)).

I'll keep the PR open (as a Draft) so as to not lose track of the progress status, and I'll close it when I open the first PR succeeding it. Does that sound OK?

@dachary Sure thing. Get [your change](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/386) in first, and I'll try to create succeeding PRs that remove redundant content (as well as try to follow your way of thinking as you described it here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/386#issuecomment-1358781). I'll keep the PR open (as a Draft) so as to not lose track of the progress status, and I'll close it when I open the first PR succeeding it. Does that sound OK?
n0toose changed title from (削除) Improve FAQ (削除ここまで) to WIP: Improve FAQ 2023年11月29日 16:57:51 +01:00

@dachary Sure thing. Get your change in first, and I'll try to create succeeding PRs that remove redundant content (as well as try to follow your way of thinking as you described it here: #386 (comment)).

I'll keep the PR open (as a Draft) so as to not lose track of the progress status, and I'll close it when I open the first PR succeeding it. Does that sound OK?

Ok. This other PR is likely to take a long time, it is a major change. And maybe it won't be merged because the approach does not meet a consensus.

> @dachary Sure thing. Get [your change](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/386) in first, and I'll try to create succeeding PRs that remove redundant content (as well as try to follow your way of thinking as you described it here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/386#issuecomment-1358781). > > I'll keep the PR open (as a Draft) so as to not lose track of the progress status, and I'll close it when I open the first PR succeeding it. Does that sound OK? Ok. This other PR is likely to take a long time, it is a major change. And maybe it won't be merged because the approach does not meet a consensus.
Author
Member
Copy link

Ok. This other PR is likely to take a long time, it is a major change. And maybe it won't be merged because the approach does not meet a consensus.

Works for me, my PR will take a long time and the consensus in your change will somewhat define how I will work; I'll try to submit something earlier if I can do it in isolation (as in, "without comparing", i.e. the public instance list as an example) and if I find the time.

> Ok. This other PR is likely to take a long time, it is a major change. And maybe it won't be merged because the approach does not meet a consensus. Works for me, my PR will take a long time and the consensus in your change will somewhat define how I will work; I'll try to submit something earlier if I can do it in isolation (as in, "*without comparing*", i.e. the public instance list as an example) and if I find the time.

Now that https://forgejo.org/compare/ is merged and a few FAQ items have moved, it is time to focus on your proposed improvements, whenever you can.

Now that https://forgejo.org/compare/ is merged and a few FAQ items have moved, it is time to focus on your proposed improvements, whenever you can.
Contributor
Copy link

@n0toose I'd like to help review your work as well.

@n0toose I'd like to help review your work as well.
Author
Member
Copy link

I'm still interested in pushing this over the finish line, but I still need some time.

I'm still interested in pushing this over the finish line, but I still need some time.
n0toose force-pushed improve-faq from 9a07544451
Some checks failed
forgejo-ci/pr/woodpecker Pipeline failed
to c4fa66ca9d
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 22s
2024年01月08日 02:59:24 +01:00 Compare
n0toose changed title from (削除) WIP: Improve FAQ (削除ここまで) to Improve FAQ 2024年01月08日 03:00:06 +01:00
@ -29,3 +19,3 @@
## Who is using Forgejo?
The largest known public instances are:
The vast majority of Forgejo's users are developers of free and open source software.
Contributor
Copy link

How can this be fact checked?

How can this be fact checked?
Author
Member
Copy link

Not sure, but it feels like a logical assumption to make. Should I keep the old phrasing or something along the lines of "we believe"? I think that open source devs are the audience that implicitly influence Forgejo's development the most, so it must be worth mentioning one way or another.

Not sure, but it feels like a logical assumption to make. Should I keep the old phrasing or something along the lines of "we believe"? I think that open source devs are the audience that implicitly influence Forgejo's development the most, so it must be worth mentioning one way or another.
Contributor
Copy link

Since there is no way to verify that it is probably better to leave this aside in the context of the FAQ. It could be material for a blog post.

Since there is no way to verify that it is probably better to leave this aside in the context of the FAQ. It could be material for a blog post.
Author
Member
Copy link

I think that, with the user counts of Codeberg and Disroot, it is a fairly safe assumption to make though, right?

Eh, whatever, I'll just do that and we'll figure it out later.

I think that, with the user counts of Codeberg and Disroot, it is a fairly safe assumption to make though, right? Eh, whatever, I'll just do that and we'll figure it out later.
Contributor
Copy link

I agree it is a fair assumption. Do you think I'm overly cautious on the matter?

I agree it is a fair assumption. Do you think I'm overly cautious on the matter?
Author
Member
Copy link

I understand that you do not want things that have not been agreed on, personal opinions or "hearsay" in a document as official as the FAQ and have modified other parts because of that, but I am not sure if this will get in the way of clarity in this case.

I think that explicitly defining "who the primary audience is" would be OK, as it clearly communicates the project's identity - there have been many UI improvements so far because of feedback coming from Codeberg users, for example. I think that, implicitly, including something like this says "hey, if you like open-source and the things that it stands for (i.e. a free and open Internet, no open-core/SaaS models), then this option may be better for you".

I understand that you do not want things that have not been agreed on, personal opinions or "hearsay" in a document as official as the FAQ and have modified other parts because of that, but I am not sure if this will get in the way of clarity in this case. I think that explicitly defining "who the primary audience is" would be OK, as it clearly communicates the project's identity - there have been many UI improvements so far because of feedback coming from Codeberg users, for example. I think that, implicitly, including something like this says "hey, if you like open-source and the things that it stands for (i.e. a free and open Internet, no open-core/SaaS models), then this option may be better for you".
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -37,0 +29,4 @@
- **Associations, hackerspaces and non-profit organizations**
- **Small and middle-sized companies**
- **Hackathons**
- **Local Governments**
Contributor
Copy link

There should be at least one link for each of those. I don't know of any company publicly advertising they are using Forgejo but I would be interested to have at least one example. I know that companies use Forgejo because I've seen that but unless there is verifiable evidence for anyone to see I can't really claim that exists. It would not be right for me to ask that people just believe what I say 😄

There should be at least one link for each of those. I don't know of any company publicly advertising they are using Forgejo but I would be interested to have at least one example. I know that companies use Forgejo because I've seen that but unless there is verifiable evidence for anyone to see I can't really claim that exists. It would not be right for me to ask that people just believe what I say 😄
Author
Member
Copy link

I am not sure if we should link any external organization - on Codeberg, or self-hosted - without asking for permission to list them first. I can remove this part for now if you want.

  • Hackathons: One example I would think of is https://www.mitrealityhack.com/ - on Codeberg IIRC
  • Local Governments: https://codeberg.org/stadt_treuchtlingen is the most active publicly-documented use case I am aware of
  • Associations, hackerspaces and non-profit organizations: I have spoken with many of them IRL, and even more of them are interested in ditching GitLab as soon as federation is in. Two examples can be found here, I can dig up more of them on request: https://git.berlin.ccc.de/explore/repos, https://git.kabelsalat.ch/ (I can dig up more examples, but I need time.)
  • Small and middle-sized companies: I am not aware of any public examples, but I've spoken to people that were using it internally iRL about it. meissa GmbH probably doesn't count.
  • Teachers and Instructors: I am aware of an architecture course in a French university using it (and having done some wonderful customization work to adjust it for their purpose). At least one instructor has asked for more repositories on Codeberg so as to teach students about Git without using GitHub. I can dig up the link but as I'm spending more and more time on this response - I'm beginning to question the efficacy of me providing receipts given the initial concern.

I am fairly sure that I can provide even more examples for each section given enough time, but it might not be as effective considering the initial concern.

I am not sure if we should link any external organization - on Codeberg, or self-hosted - without asking for permission to list them first. I can remove this part for now if you want. - **Hackathons**: One example I would think of is https://www.mitrealityhack.com/ - on Codeberg IIRC - **Local Governments**: https://codeberg.org/stadt_treuchtlingen is the most active publicly-documented use case I am aware of - **Associations, hackerspaces and non-profit organizations**: I have spoken with many of them IRL, and even more of them are interested in ditching GitLab as soon as federation is in. Two examples can be found here, I can dig up more of them on request: https://git.berlin.ccc.de/explore/repos, https://git.kabelsalat.ch/ (I can dig up more examples, but I need time.) - **Small and middle-sized companies**: I am not aware of any public examples, but I've spoken to people that were using it internally iRL about it. meissa GmbH probably doesn't count. - **Teachers and Instructors**: I am aware of an architecture course in a French university using it (and having done some wonderful customization work to adjust it for their purpose). At least one instructor has asked for more repositories on Codeberg so as to teach students about Git without using GitHub. I can dig up the link but as I'm spending more and more time on this response - I'm beginning to question the efficacy of me providing receipts given the initial concern. I am fairly sure that I can provide even more examples for each section given enough time, but it might not be as effective considering the initial concern.
Contributor
Copy link

I think it is a good FAQ entry to have, really. Maybe keep those for which there are examples that can be linked to. When an instance is public I don't see the need to ask permission to link to it, but I can understand that you think it is the polite thing to do. Your call.

I think it is a good FAQ entry to have, really. Maybe keep those for which there are examples that can be linked to. When an instance is public I don't see the need to ask permission to link to it, but I can understand that you think it is the polite thing to do. Your call.
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -37,0 +52,4 @@
Upgrading to from Gitea [to Forgejo](/download/) is as easy as changing the URL from which they download releases.
Yes, because Forgejo includes all of Gitea. All commits made on [Gitea](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/) are also present in Forgejo.
Contributor
Copy link

The two lines above should be inverted, the one starting with "Yes, " first.

The two lines above should be inverted, the one starting with "Yes, " first.
Author
Member
Copy link

Rebase fail.

Rebase fail.
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -47,2 +66,3 @@
**Yes.** The [Code of Conduct](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/code-of-conduct) applies to *all* spaces that the Forgejo project is responsible for.
No. The [license of Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICENSE) is MIT. It was suggested to change the license to AGPL in order to prevent a takeover from a for-profit company. It was however decided that the best way to prevent such a takeover was to have the Forgejo domains and trademarks in the custody of the Codeberg e.V. non-profit.
The [Moderation Team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/TEAMS.md#moderation) is the entity responsible for resolving conflicts.
Contributor
Copy link

s/the entity//

s/the entity//
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -55,0 +106,4 @@
No. The [license of Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICENSE) is MIT.
It was suggested to change the license to AGPL in order to prevent a takeover from a for-profit company.
We decided that the best way to prevent such a takeover was to have the Forgejo domains and trademarks in the custody of [Codeberg e.V](#what-is-codeberg-ev).
Contributor
Copy link

This statement is out of scope in this FAQ IMHO.

This statement is out of scope in this FAQ IMHO.
Author
Member
Copy link

FYI, a variant of this sentence existed beforehand and I tried my best to keep pre-existing content. I will remove it.

FYI, a variant of this sentence existed beforehand and I tried my best to keep pre-existing content. I will remove it.
Author
Member
Copy link

More careful review: Looks like a rebase fail.

More careful review: Looks like a rebase fail.
Contributor
Copy link

FYI, a variant of this sentence existed beforehand and I tried my best to keep pre-existing content. I will remove it.

Good point, I failed to notice that. Then I suppose it should be kept around, for the same reasons it was added in the first place. My remark stands but it will be for me to file as a future PR change rather than for you to remove it. My apologies for this oversight.

> FYI, a variant of this sentence existed beforehand and I tried my best to keep pre-existing content. I will remove it. Good point, I failed to notice that. Then I suppose it should be kept around, for the same reasons it was added in the first place. My remark stands but it will be for me to file as a future PR change rather than for you to remove it. My apologies for this oversight.
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -55,0 +108,4 @@
We decided that the best way to prevent such a takeover was to have the Forgejo domains and trademarks in the custody of [Codeberg e.V](#what-is-codeberg-ev).
---
Contributor
Copy link

Is this separator a leftover that should be removed?

Is this separator a leftover that should be removed?
Author
Member
Copy link

It is deliberate. The first part of the FAQ involves questions that are organizational, and the second part includes usage-related questions. I would like those two parts to be split off or to have a proper header, but I think that a separator is as close as one can get to a "TODO" here without changing the structure of the document too much (that can be done later).

It is deliberate. The first part of the FAQ involves questions that are organizational, and the second part includes usage-related questions. I would like those two parts to be split off or to have a proper header, but I think that a separator is as close as one can get to a "TODO" here without changing the structure of the document too much (that can be done later).
earl-warren marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -51,0 +75,4 @@
Forgejo relies on a mixture of volunteer contributions, grants, donations and employee delegation to keep going.
In summary:
- [Codeberg e.V.](##what-is-codeberg-ev) acts as our fiscal sponsor. This helps us access additional funding opportunities.
Contributor
Copy link

This is not actually the case. There is no agreement that establish this.

This is not actually the case. There is no agreement that establish this.
Author
Member
Copy link

In the current version, it is mentioned that "There is just one item on the roadmap: forge federation.". I tried to expand this so as to say that Forgejo isn't exclusively working on forge federation, especially because of the "why would I use Forgejo when it can't federate yet?" question.

In the current version, it is mentioned that "There is just one item on the roadmap: forge federation.". I tried to expand this so as to say that Forgejo isn't exclusively working on forge federation, especially because of the "why would I use Forgejo when it can't federate yet?" question.
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -51,0 +78,4 @@
- [Codeberg e.V.](##what-is-codeberg-ev) acts as our fiscal sponsor. This helps us access additional funding opportunities.
- Forgejo's governance structures are independent of Codeberg's.
- We apply for grants that helps us [meet our own goals](#is-there-a-roadmap-for-forgejo) more efficiently.
- Individual contributors may accept [employment contracts](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/professional-services/issues).
Contributor
Copy link

s/may accept/can independently/ (i.e. they are not "authorized", they just do not need permission, this is something for them to decide and not for Forgejo to agree to)

s/may accept/can independently/ (i.e. they are not "authorized", they just do not need permission, this is something for them to decide and not for Forgejo to agree to)
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -51,0 +79,4 @@
- Forgejo's governance structures are independent of Codeberg's.
- We apply for grants that helps us [meet our own goals](#is-there-a-roadmap-for-forgejo) more efficiently.
- Individual contributors may accept [employment contracts](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/professional-services/issues).
- Forgejo reviews contributions made on behalf of a company, as long as the project's independence is not compromised.
Contributor
Copy link

This is an implicit assumption that can't be phrased like this in the FAQ because it has never been discussed or decided in these terms anywhere.

This is an implicit assumption that can't be phrased like this in the FAQ because it has never been discussed or decided in these terms anywhere.
Author
Member
Copy link

Thought it was a "de facto" reality and this is "how I would verbally explain this to another person IRL", but I understand that this is not enough. It will be removed.

Thought it was a "de facto" reality and this is "how I would verbally explain this to another person IRL", but I understand that this is not enough. It will be removed.
Contributor
Copy link

I also think it is a quality of Forgejo. My remark was that adding it the way you did suggests there are explicit rules to prevent that from happening. Or maybe i'm interpreting the sentence in the wrong way?

I also think it is a quality of Forgejo. My remark was that adding it the way you did suggests there are explicit rules to prevent that from happening. Or maybe i'm interpreting the sentence in the wrong way?
Author
Member
Copy link

I get why you'd interpret it that way, and the hypothetical verbal discussion in my head is also not as binding as an FAQ :)

I agree that it should be removed and/or adjusted.

I get why you'd interpret it that way, and the hypothetical verbal discussion in my head is also not as binding as an FAQ :) I agree that it should be removed and/or adjusted.
Author
Member
Copy link

Should be fixed.

Should be fixed.
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -51,0 +89,4 @@
It is an extension of [ActivityPub](https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/).
We also work on a standardized repository format called [Friendly Forge Format](https://f3.forgefriends.org).
Such a standard would prevent situations that would prevent a maintainer from moving their repositories to another forge,
Contributor
Copy link

F3 is a project that is not in Forgejo's scope, it is independent. It could be phrased like this:

A Forgejo driver for the Friendly Forge Format is developed to allow for data portability. It is also an enabler for federation features.

F3 is a project that is not in Forgejo's scope, it is independent. It could be phrased like this: > A Forgejo driver for the [Friendly Forge Format](https://f3.forgefriends.org) is developed to allow for data portability. It is also an enabler for federation features.
Author
Member
Copy link

I will remove this - we should use that section to mention some overall details about our progress with federation later, but I will leave that out for now.

I will remove this - we should use that section to mention some overall details about our progress with federation later, but I will leave that out for now.
earl-warren marked this conversation as resolved
Contributor
Copy link

First pass of review done. On a general note could you please keep the FAQ in the "third person"? That is, use "Forgejo does this and this" instead of "We do this and this". Using "It" instead of "We". This is more inclusive in the sense that it is about an object shared by all (Forgejo) rather than a group of people (us) which implies there are people who do not belong to the group (them).

First pass of review done. On a general note could you please keep the FAQ in the "third person"? That is, use "Forgejo does this and this" instead of "We do this and this". Using "It" instead of "We". This is more inclusive in the sense that it is about an object shared by all (Forgejo) rather than a group of people (us) which implies there are people who do not belong to the group (them).
Address earl-warren's reviews
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 24s
492480b21b 
- Remove 'controversial' additions that need much more thinking
 (i.e. 'who uses Forgejo')
- Replace usage of 'we' or 'our' where appropriate
- Remove inaccurate statements
Author
Member
Copy link

First pass of review done. On a general note could you please keep the FAQ in the "third person"?

I changed the wording everywhere in a way that implicitly assigns Forgejo a meaning of "the general consensus of the community of contributors building Forgejo", but kept it at one particular spot where I felt like it made sense.

We believe that this arrangement reinforces the security of Forgejo,
as Forgejo has to abide by Codeberg's goals as well.

> First pass of review done. On a general note could you please keep the FAQ in the "third person"? I changed the wording everywhere in a way that implicitly assigns Forgejo a meaning of "the general consensus of the community of contributors building Forgejo", but kept it at one particular spot where I felt like it made sense. > We believe that this arrangement reinforces the security of Forgejo, > as Forgejo has to abide by Codeberg's goals as well.
Author
Member
Copy link

FYI: Failed linting checks, do not merge yet.

FYI: Failed linting checks, do not merge yet.
oliverpool left a comment
Copy link

Thanks for taking the time to revamp this page!

I noticed a few typos.

Thanks for taking the time to revamp this page! I noticed a few typos.
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -37,0 +26,4 @@
[Codeberg](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/Imprint.md) is a non-profit association registered in Berlin, Germany.
The abbreviation **e.V.** stands for _eingetragener Verein_, which translates as 'registered association'.
[As defined by its Bylaws]](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md),

Typo ]]

Typo `]]`
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -51,0 +65,4 @@
Forgejo relies on a mixture of volunteer contributions, grants, donations and employee delegation to keep going.
In summary:
- [Codeberg e.V.](##what-is-codeberg-ev) owns Forgejo's domains, provides resources and cooperates closely with Forgejo.

Typo ##

Typo `##`
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -54,1 +88,4 @@
## Is Forgejo licensed under AGPL?
No. The [license of Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICENSE) is MIT.

A discussion happened to "accept contributions compatible with GPLv3-or-later" forgejo/governance#24

However as far as I know, no such contribution has been made for now (MIT-incompatible).

Maybe this should be mentioned (an addition can be made that git is also GPL-licensed).

It was suggested to change the license to AGPL in order to prevent a takeover from a for-profit company. However no agreement could be reached and a reduced proposal of accepting contributions compatible with GPLv3-or-later has been agreed upon (until such a contribution, Forgejo is licensed under the MIT License). The current License of Forgejo can be read in the source code.

A discussion happened to "accept contributions compatible with GPLv3-or-later" https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/24 However as far as I know, no such contribution has been made for now (MIT-incompatible). Maybe this should be mentioned (an addition can be made that `git` is also GPL-licensed). > It was suggested to change the license to AGPL in order to prevent a takeover from a for-profit company. However no agreement could be reached and a [reduced proposal](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/24) of accepting contributions compatible with GPLv3-or-later has been agreed upon (until such a contribution, Forgejo is licensed under the MIT License). The [current License of Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICENSE) can be read in the source code.
n0toose marked this conversation as resolved
Fix linting, own spin on oliverpool's recommendations
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 51s
237be784b6 
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Fix typo
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 47s
3fb989f9e9
Collaborator
Copy link

Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/v1.21/admin/command-line/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/next/admin/command-line/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/latest/admin/command-line/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/2023-12-monthly-update/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/v1.21/user/actions/

Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/v1.21/admin/command-line/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/next/admin/command-line/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/latest/admin/command-line/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/2023-12-monthly-update/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_375/docs/v1.21/user/actions/
Introduce minor formatting fixes
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 52s
5534dbdd92
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -37,0 +29,4 @@
[As defined by its Bylaws](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md),
its goal is to "guarantee the openness and continued availability of free software".
We believe that this arrangement reinforces the security of Forgejo,
Owner
Copy link

Financial, social or stability security?

Financial, social or stability security?
Author
Member
Copy link

I meant "longevity" here, but "financial" and "stability" security could also work. I am not sure how I can phrase this better, while avoiding the use of the term "sustainability".

I meant "longevity" here, but "financial" and "stability" security could also work. I am not sure how I can phrase this better, while avoiding the use of the term "sustainability".
Owner
Copy link

s/security/longevity in terms of stability and financial security would do the job.

`s/security/longevity in terms of stability and financial security` would do the job.
Author
Member
Copy link

Done. I changed the phrasing a little bit.

Done. I changed the phrasing a little bit.
Gusted marked this conversation as resolved
Introduce suggestions by gusted
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 48s
6162b7dcad
Author
Member
Copy link

Thanks for the reviews and the time you all invested in this PR - I wish I'd have done it in smaller iterative changes, but it felt like many different questions basically depended on each other in a way that warranted something like a full rewrite and restructuring of the document at once.

Thanks for the reviews and the time you all invested in this PR - I wish I'd have done it in smaller iterative changes, but it felt like many different questions basically depended on each other in a way that warranted something like a full rewrite and restructuring of the document at once.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
404
Broken links or missing content
Accessibility
Accessibility
Blog post
Documentation
Forgejo Documentation
Internationalisation
i18n and l10n
User research - Accessibility
Requires input about accessibility features, likely involves user testing.
User research - Blocked
Do not pick as-is! We are happy if you can help, but please coordinate with ongoing redesign in this area.
User research - Community
Community features, such as discovering other people's work or otherwise feeling welcome on a Forgejo instance.
User research - Config (instance)
Instance-wide configuration, authentication and other admin-only needs.
User research - Errors
How to deal with errors in the application and write helpful error messages.
User research - Filters
How filter and search is being worked with.
User research - Future backlog
The issue might be inspiring for future design work.
User research - Git workflow
AGit, fork-based and new Git workflow, PR creation etc
User research - Labels
Active research about Labels
User research - Moderation
Moderation Featuers for Admins are undergoing active User Research
User research - Needs input
Use this label to let the User Research team know their input is requested.
User research - Notifications/Dashboard
Research on how users should know what to do next.
User research - Rendering
Text rendering, markup languages etc
User research - Repo creation
Active research about the New Repo dialog.
User research - Repo units
The repo sections, disabling them and the "Add more" button.
User research - Security
User research - Settings (in-app)
How to structure in-app settings in the future?
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
6 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
forgejo/website!375
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/website
No description provided.
Delete branch "n0toose/forgejo-actual-website:improve-faq"

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?