32
40
Fork
You've already forked website
52

Forgejo forks its own path forward #414

Merged
earl-warren merged 8 commits from :blog/forking-forward into main 2024年02月15日 23:35:30 +01:00

This is the alternative I posted in #413 (comment), slightly updated since. There are a lot of things that aren't in it that were in the original, and as such, some of the suggestions made in the original PR no longer apply, but I tried to capture the spirit of them, nevertheless.

The goal here was to send a positive message, focusing on Forgejo and its future, rather than on Gitea. I tried to keep the amount of Gitea references to a minimum. As such, this proposed text intentionally does not even mention Open Core, because doing so would require a long explanation and reasoning, and would derail the topic. It has been discussed elsewhere, and that can be found by following the links in the proposed post, if someone's interested. In fact, the text doesn't go into much detail about the whys, but tries to highlight the benefits (more control over code Forgejo incorporates, more freedom to do larger changes that Gitea does not deem important, and basically to do what benefits Forgejo and its users going forward), rather than the hardships and problems.

I'm still not 100% happy with the text, but it's at a stage where a review and suggestions would be incredibly beneficial.

An additional task will be to update the comparison page, to be a little bit more complete, regarding the differences between Gitea and Forgejo (ie, highlight more features and bugfixes in Forgejo that aren't in Gitea). That must be done before the blog post is published, and should be done even if it is decided to go with a completely different text, imo.

Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/2024-02-forking-forward/

This is the alternative I posted in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/413#issuecomment-1553781, slightly updated since. There are a lot of things that aren't in it that were in the original, and as such, some of the suggestions made in the original PR no longer apply, but I tried to capture the spirit of them, nevertheless. The goal here was to send a positive message, focusing on Forgejo and its future, rather than on Gitea. I tried to keep the amount of Gitea references to a minimum. As such, this proposed text intentionally does not even mention Open Core, because doing so would require a long explanation and reasoning, and would derail the topic. It has been discussed elsewhere, and that can be found by following the links in the proposed post, if someone's interested. In fact, the text doesn't go into much detail about the whys, but tries to highlight the benefits (more control over code Forgejo incorporates, more freedom to do larger changes that Gitea does not deem important, and basically to do what benefits *Forgejo* and its users going forward), rather than the hardships and problems. I'm still not 100% happy with the text, but it's at a stage where a review and suggestions would be incredibly beneficial. An additional task will be to update the comparison page, to be a little bit more complete, regarding the differences between Gitea and Forgejo (ie, highlight more features and bugfixes in Forgejo that aren't in Gitea). That must be done before the blog post is published, and should be done even if it is decided to go with a completely different text, imo. --- Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/2024-02-forking-forward/
Collaborator
Copy link

Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/v1.21/admin/command-line/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/next/admin/command-line/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/latest/admin/command-line/
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/.../storage
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/v1.22/admin/config-cheat-sheet/

Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/v1.21/admin/command-line/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/next/admin/command-line/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/latest/admin/command-line/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/.../storage https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_414/docs/v1.22/admin/config-cheat-sheet/
Contributor
Copy link

I really love the first part. The second one is less inspiring but it has more precise information which is also important. Overall fantastic work 👍

I really love the first part. The second one is less inspiring but it has more precise information which is also important. Overall fantastic work 👍
oliverpool left a comment
Copy link

Thank you for putting this together!

Maybe the "liberation" part could be highlighted further:

  • Forgejo has been developed since the first day on free software (Gitea, then Forgejo)
  • the CI has been migrated as well to free software (woodpecker, then Forgejo actions)
  • the translations just got moved from a proprietary platform to free software (Weblate)

All three platform now have a healthy pool of contributors (the translation reviewers being the latest addition: forgejo/governance#83)

Thank you for putting this together! Maybe the "liberation" part could be highlighted further: - Forgejo has been developed since the first day on free software (Gitea, then Forgejo) - the CI has been migrated as well to free software (woodpecker, then Forgejo actions) - the translations just got moved from a proprietary platform to free software (Weblate) All three platform now have a healthy pool of contributors (the translation reviewers being the latest addition: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/83)
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from 36fd6e8753
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 52s
to fcb19fc17f
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 16s
2024年02月08日 08:44:17 +01:00 Compare
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from fcb19fc17f
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 16s
to da4b8890ad
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 51s
2024年02月08日 08:48:09 +01:00 Compare
Author
Member
Copy link

Rearranged the post a bit, lifting out the "The hard forking process", which highlights parts that were already hard-forked and moved to free platforms.

Rearranged the post a bit, lifting out the "The hard forking process", which highlights parts that were already hard-forked and moved to free platforms.
oliverpool left a comment
Copy link

I like it 👍

Maybe it would be a good idea to update src/pages/compare.md at the same time:

### Will Forgejo become a hard fork of Gitea?

After more than a year of being a soft-fork, [Forgejo eventually became a hard fork of Gitea early 2024](./2024-01-forking-forward/).
I like it 👍 Maybe it would be a good idea to update `src/pages/compare.md` at the same time: ```md ### Will Forgejo become a hard fork of Gitea? After more than a year of being a soft-fork, [Forgejo eventually became a hard fork of Gitea early 2024](./2024-01-forking-forward/). ```
@ -0,0 +5,4 @@
excerpt: Forgejo started as a soft-fork of Gitea, in reaction to governance changes within the project. Over time, it developed its own identity, adopted both development and governance practices - to ensure the stability, quality, and openness of the project - that made it more challenging to remain a soft fork. In early 2024, a decision was made to become a hard fork, and for Forgejo to forge its own path going forward. This post explains the consequences this decision will have.
---
Since its [inception](https://forgejo.org/2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/), Forgejo has been a "soft-fork" of Gitea. Upgrading to it was - and for the time being, remains to be - as simple as [changing the URL from which the release is downloaded](https://forgejo.org/download/). Over time, the way Forgejo is governed and developed evolved. To be able to provide stable, secure, reliable releases, Forgejo requires a [reasonable effort made at writing tests](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md) for each change that goes into the code. This has worked out remarkably well, as it caught both regressions in imported code, and mistakes in proposed changes. Furthermore, Forgejo has accepted features and other changes that are not available in Gitea. The [comparison page](https://forgejo.org/compare/) highlights a number of these in more detail.

I believe that the links to forgejo.org should be made relative [inception](../2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/)

I believe that the links to forgejo.org should be made relative `[inception](../2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/)`
oliverpool marked this conversation as resolved
Author
Member
Copy link

I like it 👍

Maybe it would be a good idea to update src/pages/compare.md at the same time:

### Will Forgejo become a hard fork of Gitea?

After more than a year of being a soft-fork, [Forgejo eventually became a hard fork of Gitea early 2024](./2024-01-forking-forward/).

Yep, the comparison page needs an update too. Not just about the hard fork, but additional feature highlights too. I think that can be done independently, and most of it can be done prior to publishing the hard fork post. (I'll submit a separate PR soonish)

Updating the hard fork question, however, is probably a good idea to do in the same commit.

> I like it 👍 > > > Maybe it would be a good idea to update `src/pages/compare.md` at the same time: > > ```md > ### Will Forgejo become a hard fork of Gitea? > > After more than a year of being a soft-fork, [Forgejo eventually became a hard fork of Gitea early 2024](./2024-01-forking-forward/). > ``` Yep, the comparison page needs an update too. Not just about the hard fork, but additional feature highlights too. I think that can be done independently, and most of it can be done prior to publishing the hard fork post. (I'll submit a separate PR soonish) Updating the hard fork question, however, is probably a good idea to do in the same commit.
Ghost approved these changes 2024年02月08日 11:16:22 +01:00
Member
Copy link

Yep, the comparison page needs an update too.

The FAQ too.

Title: I’m sold. Are migrations from Gitea to Forgejo possible?, Content: Yes, because Forgejo includes all of Gitea. All commits made on Gitea are also present in Forgejo.

> Yep, the comparison page needs an update too. The FAQ too. ![Title: I’m sold. Are migrations from Gitea to Forgejo possible?, Content: Yes, because Forgejo includes all of Gitea. All commits made on Gitea are also present in Forgejo.](/attachments/8cfc8b64-96dc-4003-b070-594f6cf76cd7)
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from da4b8890ad
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 51s
to 0000fe9861
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m16s
2024年02月08日 22:51:04 +01:00 Compare
Author
Member
Copy link

Pushed another update:

  • Uses relative links for stuff on forgejo.org
  • Updates the FAQ & Comparison pages in a separate commit

I originally wanted to list more features that Forgejo has and Gitea doesn't to the comparison page, but a number of those features aren't in any Forgejo release yet. So I opted to say "more are coming in the next release". Not ideal, but it will do.

However, that gave me an idea: what if we had another blog post, highlighting some of the new things coming in the next release? The comparison page could then refer to that. I considered including a section about them in this blog post, but the comparison page linking here felt wrong. It'd feel better if it was separate.

It could be published before the hard fork post, even! I'm happy to go through the v1.21/forgejo...forgejo diff and highlight things I didn't already highlight for the WIP 1.22 release notes, I wanted to do that anyway for the release notes. Turning that into an inspiration blog post is very little additional work.

Pushed another update: - Uses relative links for stuff on `forgejo.org` - Updates the FAQ & Comparison pages in a separate commit I originally wanted to list more features that Forgejo has and Gitea doesn't to the comparison page, but a number of those features aren't in any Forgejo release yet. So I opted to say "more are coming in the next release". Not ideal, but it will do. However, that gave me an idea: what if we had another blog post, highlighting some of the new things coming in the next release? The comparison page could then refer to that. I considered including a section about them in *this* blog post, but the comparison page linking here felt wrong. It'd feel better if it was separate. It could be published *before* the hard fork post, even! I'm happy to go through the `v1.21/forgejo...forgejo` diff and highlight things I didn't already highlight for the [WIP 1.22 release notes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2128), I wanted to do that anyway for the release notes. Turning that into an inspiration blog post is very little additional work.
Contributor
Copy link

I originally wanted to list more features that Forgejo has and Gitea doesn't to the comparison page, but a number of those features aren't in any Forgejo release yet. So I opted to say "more are coming in the next release". Not ideal, but it will do.

Maintaining a feature comparison page is extremely difficult. It also bring with it a spirit of competition that I find very difficult to manage, at a personal level. I'm fine with a comparison page that is about deep, permanent differences. Diving into technical details is going to be a lot of nitpicking. And I can't imagine the work needed to do that with GitHub and GitLab who keep adding features and improvements at a pace that is quite frankly impossible for me to follow.

My 2tcs.

> I originally wanted to list more features that Forgejo has and Gitea doesn't to the comparison page, but a number of those features aren't in any Forgejo release yet. So I opted to say "more are coming in the next release". Not ideal, but it will do. Maintaining a feature comparison page is extremely difficult. It also bring with it a spirit of competition that I find very difficult to manage, at a personal level. I'm fine with a comparison page that is about deep, permanent differences. Diving into technical details is going to be a lot of nitpicking. And I can't imagine the work needed to do that with GitHub and GitLab who keep adding features and improvements at a pace that is quite frankly impossible for me to follow. My 2tcs.
Author
Member
Copy link

I originally wanted to list more features that Forgejo has and Gitea doesn't to the comparison page, but a number of those features aren't in any Forgejo release yet. So I opted to say "more are coming in the next release". Not ideal, but it will do.

Maintaining a feature comparison page is extremely difficult. It also bring with it a spirit of competition that I find very difficult to manage, at a personal level. I'm fine with a comparison page that is about deep, permanent differences. Diving into technical details is going to be a lot of nitpicking. And I can't imagine the work needed to do that with GitHub and GitLab who keep adding features and improvements at a pace that is quite frankly impossible for me to follow.

Hrm, yeah, that is true. Perhaps its time to retire that part, and focus on - as you said - the deep, permanent differences. I'll have a sleep on it, and post an updated take on it tomorrow with a fresh head. Thanks!

> > I originally wanted to list more features that Forgejo has and Gitea doesn't to the comparison page, but a number of those features aren't in any Forgejo release yet. So I opted to say "more are coming in the next release". Not ideal, but it will do. > > Maintaining a feature comparison page is extremely difficult. It also bring with it a spirit of competition that I find very difficult to manage, at a personal level. I'm fine with a comparison page that is about deep, permanent differences. Diving into technical details is going to be a lot of nitpicking. And I can't imagine the work needed to do that with GitHub and GitLab who keep adding features and improvements at a pace that is quite frankly impossible for me to follow. Hrm, yeah, that is true. Perhaps its time to retire that part, and focus on - as you said - the deep, permanent differences. I'll have a sleep on it, and post an updated take on it tomorrow with a fresh head. Thanks!
Contributor
Copy link

I cannot emphasize enough how good the proposed blog post is. This is extraordinarily difficult to write (for me it is) and much needed as a stepping stone to the hard fork. 💯

I cannot emphasize enough how good the proposed blog post is. This is extraordinarily difficult to write (for me it is) and much needed as a stepping stone to the hard fork. 💯
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from 0000fe9861
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m16s
to 32e7d92859
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 16s
2024年02月09日 07:35:39 +01:00 Compare
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from 32e7d92859
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 16s
to b3e76d66a6
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 52s
2024年02月09日 07:38:05 +01:00 Compare
Author
Member
Copy link

Pushed another update, reworking the compare page quite a bit, deemphasizing the feature differences (because maintaining such a list honestly is prohibitively hard). However, while doing this, I noticed #406, and that pull request has some great ideas, so I will be doing another update, trying to incorporate the relevant parts of it.

Pushed another update, reworking the compare page quite a bit, deemphasizing the feature differences (because maintaining such a list honestly is prohibitively hard). However, while doing this, I noticed #406, and that pull request has some great ideas, so I will be doing another update, trying to incorporate the relevant parts of it.
@ -0,0 +8,4 @@
Since its [inception](../2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/), Forgejo has been a "soft-fork" of Gitea. Upgrading to it was - and for the time being, remains to be - as simple as [changing the URL from which the release is downloaded](../download/). Over time, the way Forgejo is governed and developed evolved. To be able to provide stable, secure, reliable releases, Forgejo requires a [reasonable effort made at writing tests](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md) for each change that goes into the code. This has worked out remarkably well, as it caught both regressions in imported code, and mistakes in proposed changes. Furthermore, Forgejo has accepted features and other changes that are not available in Gitea, and has [diverged](#the-hard-forking-process) in other ways already.
Today, Forgejo has a healthy number of contributors - both volunteers and paid -, an ever growing test suite, plenty of fixes and features over its upstream codebase, while maintaining its main mission:
Contributor
Copy link

an ever growing test suite, plenty of fixes and features over its upstream codebase, while maintaining

what about simplifying to

contributing to

The paragraph above already mentions and links to divergences, it feels redundant to re-iterate them here. In addition there is a problem with adjectives such as "plenty" as they will likely trigger someone into a quantitative comparison which is, IMHO, a futile and time wasting exercise.

> an ever growing test suite, plenty of fixes and features over its upstream codebase, while maintaining what about simplifying to > contributing to The paragraph above already mentions and links to divergences, it feels redundant to re-iterate them here. In addition there is a problem with adjectives such as "plenty" as they will likely trigger someone into a quantitative comparison which is, IMHO, a futile and time wasting exercise.
Author
Member
Copy link

Today, Forgejo has a healthy number of people contributing to its main mission:

What do you think?

> Today, Forgejo has a healthy number of people contributing to its main mission: What do you think?
Contributor
Copy link

Perfect.

Perfect.
earl-warren marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +25,4 @@
- More recently, [localization](../docs/v1.21/developer/localization/) has been moved from Crowdin to Weblate.
Most of these steps were taken to liberate parts of the code base from proprietary solutions, to manage them with free software instead, and in the same process, make it simpler to manage Forgejo-specific changes, and contributing to them easier. All while keeping the impact on the software itself minimal.
Contributor
Copy link

I would remove

, and contributing to them easier.

I would remove > , and contributing to them easier.
Author
Member
Copy link

I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, and would argue to keep it, but I'm failing to come up with well articulated reasons that won't derail the topic... I guess it's better to remove that part then, indeed.

I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, and would argue to keep it, but I'm failing to come up with well articulated reasons that won't derail the topic... I guess it's better to remove that part then, indeed.
Contributor
Copy link

My main reason to suggest the removal is that it makes the sentence, as a whole, more difficult to read. And the value of keeping it is probably not worth the rewriting effort to make it easier to read. But again, not a blocker, just a suggestion.

My main reason to suggest the removal is that it makes the sentence, as a whole, more difficult to read. And the value of keeping it is probably not worth the rewriting effort to make it easier to read. But again, not a blocker, just a suggestion.
algernon marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +28,4 @@
## Consequences of becoming a hard fork
However, Forgejo still contained all of Gitea, and that had the benefit of allowing Forgejo to be a drop-in replacement. With the decision to become a hard fork, this will no longer be guaranteed. It will remain possible to upgrade from the latest [Gitea version released](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.21.5) at the time of the hard fork, but versions past that will not have such a guarantee.
Contributor
Copy link

However, Forgejo still contained all of Gitea, and that had the benefit

What about:

As of Forgejo v1.21, Forgejo contains all of Gitea and that has the benefit

> However, Forgejo still contained all of Gitea, and that had the benefit What about: > As of Forgejo v1.21, Forgejo contains all of Gitea and that has the benefit
earl-warren left a comment
Copy link

Re-read the blog post and proposed minor non-blocking improvements.

Re-read the blog post and proposed minor non-blocking improvements.
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from b3e76d66a6
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 52s
to c90b876389
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 51s
2024年02月09日 10:13:40 +01:00 Compare
Author
Member
Copy link

Pushed another update, addressing @earl-warren 's notes, and incorporating much of #406.

Pushed another update, addressing @earl-warren 's notes, and incorporating much of #406.
@ -0,0 +32,4 @@
As such, if you were considering upgrading to Forgejo, we encourage you to do that sooner rather than later, because as the projects naturally diverge further, doing so will become ever harder. It will not happen overnight, it may not even happen soon, but eventually, Forgejo will stop being a drop-in replacement.
To ensure interoperability with existing third party tools, libraries and SDK, every effort will however be made by Forgejo contributors to maintain a compatibility with the Gitea API. This commitment does not however extend to Gitea features that are not available as Free Software, nor to features and functionality that Forgejo explicitly decided not to incorporate.
Owner
Copy link

Maybe a link here to the agreement we made for this? (I'm actually not sure where we said to do this, even though I agree on it 😅)

Maybe a link here to the agreement we made for this? (I'm actually not sure where we said to do this, even though I agree on it 😅)
Author
Member
Copy link

forgejo/governance#58 (discussion about the section starts here)

For the sake being clear, I'll copy the text from there.

https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/58#user-content-interoperability (discussion about the section starts [here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/58#issuecomment-1526303)) For the sake being clear, I'll copy the text from there.
Gusted marked this conversation as resolved
src/pages/faq.md Outdated
@ -50,9 +50,9 @@ See [Comparison with Gitea](/compare).
### I'm sold. Are migrations from Gitea to Forgejo possible?
Yes, because Forgejo includes all of Gitea. All commits made on [Gitea](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/) are also present in Forgejo.
Owner
Copy link

There are few references of /compare which should be updated to the new Gitea page. Or reworded to be generalized to other forges and leave the link as-is.

There are few references of `/compare` which should be updated to the new Gitea page. Or reworded to be generalized to other forges and leave the link as-is.
Author
Member
Copy link

Good catch! I will update the link (or the text, whichever is more appropriate).

Good catch! I will update the link (or the text, whichever is more appropriate).
Gusted marked this conversation as resolved
algernon force-pushed blog/forking-forward from c90b876389
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 51s
to 15a6f44ecf
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 53s
2024年02月10日 00:25:56 +01:00 Compare
Author
Member
Copy link

Updated:

  • Fixed the FAQ links, so they point to /compare-to-gitea/.
  • Replaced the API promise with the wording from the agreement (linked earlier in the post)
Updated: - Fixed the FAQ links, so they point to `/compare-to-gitea/`. - Replaced the API promise with the wording from the agreement (linked earlier in the post)
0ko approved these changes 2024年02月10日 04:34:03 +01:00

I just realized that this post might be the first contact with Forgejo for some people (if the news get spread over social media).

Maybe a parenthesis could be added in the very first sentence?

Since its inception, Forgejo has been a "soft-fork" of Gitea (self-hosted git service, like GitHub).

I just realized that this post might be the first contact with Forgejo for some people (if the news get spread over social media). Maybe a parenthesis could be added in the very first sentence? > Since its inception, Forgejo has been a "soft-fork" of Gitea (self-hosted git service, like GitHub).
Author
Member
Copy link

I just realized that this post might be the first contact with Forgejo for some people (if the news get spread over social media).

Maybe a parenthesis could be added in the very first sentence?

Since its inception, Forgejo has been a "soft-fork" of Gitea (self-hosted git service, like GitHub).

"(self-hosted git forge, like GitHub)"?

It's more than a "git service". I'm not sure I'm liking the comparison with GitHub, but I do agree that this might be a thing where people wonder just what the heck Forgejo is in the first place, so referencing something better known, even if proprietary, makes sense. I don't have to link to it.

Will update in a bit.

> I just realized that this post might be the first contact with Forgejo for some people (if the news get spread over social media). > > Maybe a parenthesis could be added in the very first sentence? > > > Since its inception, Forgejo has been a "soft-fork" of Gitea (self-hosted git service, like GitHub). "(self-hosted git forge, like GitHub)"? It's more than a "git service". I'm not sure I'm liking the comparison with GitHub, but I do agree that this might be a thing where people wonder just what the heck Forgejo is in the first place, so referencing something better known, even if proprietary, makes sense. I don't have to link to it. Will update in a bit.
Wording & date update
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m10s
5438e5b991
 
Renamed the blog post to "2024-02-forking-forward.md", because it is
February now. Updated the pages that were linking to it to point at the
correct URL, too.
While there, also added a tiny note briefly explaining what Forgejo is,
would someone first come across Forgejo by way of the blog post.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Author
Member
Copy link

Pushed an update:

  • Renamed the file, to have a "2024-02-" prefix, and updated all links pointing to it.
  • This included fixing a link that was pointing to a non-existent place too. Oops.
  • Added a short "(a self-hosted git forge, like GitHub)" to the blog post.

I'm not sure about that wording... it might imply GitHub is self-hosted too? Perhaps the double-negative "not unlike GitHub" would work better?

Pushed an update: - Renamed the file, to have a "2024-02-" prefix, and updated all links pointing to it. - This included fixing a link that was pointing to a non-existent place too. Oops. - Added a short "(a self-hosted git forge, like GitHub)" to the blog post. I'm not sure about that wording... it might imply GitHub is self-hosted too? Perhaps the double-negative "not unlike GitHub" would work better?
Gusted left a comment
Copy link

Many thanks @earl-warren and @algernon!

Many thanks @earl-warren and @algernon!
algernon deleted branch blog/forking-forward 2024年02月15日 23:42:03 +01:00
Contributor
Copy link

Toot. Cut the excerpt a bit so it fits in the character limits.

Forgejo forks its own path forward 🚀 
Forgejo started as a soft fork of Gitea. Over time, it developed its own identity, adopted both development and governance practices - to ensure the stability, quality, and openness of the project - that made it more challenging to remain a soft fork. In early 2024, a decision was made to become a hard fork, and for Forgejo to forge its own path going forward. This post explains the consequences this decision will have.
https://forgejo.org/2024-02-forking-forward/

https://floss.social/@forgejo/111938016158191485

Toot. Cut the excerpt a bit so it fits in the character limits. ``` Forgejo forks its own path forward 🚀 Forgejo started as a soft fork of Gitea. Over time, it developed its own identity, adopted both development and governance practices - to ensure the stability, quality, and openness of the project - that made it more challenging to remain a soft fork. In early 2024, a decision was made to become a hard fork, and for Forgejo to forge its own path going forward. This post explains the consequences this decision will have. https://forgejo.org/2024-02-forking-forward/ ``` https://floss.social/@forgejo/111938016158191485
Sign in to join this conversation.
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
8 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!414
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/website
No description provided.
Delete branch ":blog/forking-forward"

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?