32
40
Fork
You've already forked website
52

Forgejo monthly update - April 2024 #447

Merged
earl-warren merged 23 commits from :2024-04-monthly-update into main 2024年04月30日 19:19:52 +02:00

Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_447/2024-04-monthly-update/


Room announcement https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$dVdQYuk3L3dvma0A5PayI6WdYI5MU89p8rgPx8sXjeI?via=schinas.net&via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de

@room the [monthly update was published](https://forgejo.org/2024-04-monthly-update/) ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities.
Contributors got together to celebrate the release of [Forgejo v7.0](https://forgejo.org/2024-04-release-v7-0/) and Codeberg was upgraded the next day. A lot of effort went into the automation of the development process, for dependency management and releases, so that contributors can focus on what matters most. As Forgejo matures, more and more of the work is about day to day management of bug reports, localization, security, etc. All aspects that make Forgejo a product that can be relied on for the years ahead. 17 interviews were conducted to better understand how Forgejo is used and shape its roadmap in a user centered way.

Toot https://floss.social/@forgejo/112361331017900627

The #Forgejo monthly update was published ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities.
Contributors celebrated the release of Forgejo v7.0 and Codeberg was upgraded the next day. A lot of effort went into the automation of the development process. As Forgejo matures, more and more of the work is about day to day management of bug reports, localization, security, etc. 17 interviews were conducted to better understand how it is used and shape its roadmap.
https://forgejo.org/2024-04-monthly-update/

since='2024年03月29日'
(
 for repo in codeberg.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{forgejo,website,docs,tools,governance} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{runner,end-to-end,act,lxc-helpers,forgejo-curl} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/actions/{cascading-pr,setup-forgejo,forgejo-release,ovh-dns-update} ; do 
	forgejo-curl.sh api_json "https://${repo}/issues/comments?since=${since}T00%3A00%3A02%2B00%3A00" | jq -r '.[] | .user.login'
 done
) | sort -u | grep -v -e '^forgejo-' -e end-to-end -e cascading-pr | sed -e 's|^|- https://codeberg.org/|'
Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_447/2024-04-monthly-update/ --- Room announcement https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$dVdQYuk3L3dvma0A5PayI6WdYI5MU89p8rgPx8sXjeI?via=schinas.net&via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de ``` @room the [monthly update was published](https://forgejo.org/2024-04-monthly-update/) ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities. Contributors got together to celebrate the release of [Forgejo v7.0](https://forgejo.org/2024-04-release-v7-0/) and Codeberg was upgraded the next day. A lot of effort went into the automation of the development process, for dependency management and releases, so that contributors can focus on what matters most. As Forgejo matures, more and more of the work is about day to day management of bug reports, localization, security, etc. All aspects that make Forgejo a product that can be relied on for the years ahead. 17 interviews were conducted to better understand how Forgejo is used and shape its roadmap in a user centered way. ``` Toot https://floss.social/@forgejo/112361331017900627 ``` The #Forgejo monthly update was published ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities. Contributors celebrated the release of Forgejo v7.0 and Codeberg was upgraded the next day. A lot of effort went into the automation of the development process. As Forgejo matures, more and more of the work is about day to day management of bug reports, localization, security, etc. 17 interviews were conducted to better understand how it is used and shape its roadmap. https://forgejo.org/2024-04-monthly-update/ ``` --- ```sh since='2024年03月29日' ( for repo in codeberg.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{forgejo,website,docs,tools,governance} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{runner,end-to-end,act,lxc-helpers,forgejo-curl} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/actions/{cascading-pr,setup-forgejo,forgejo-release,ovh-dns-update} ; do forgejo-curl.sh api_json "https://${repo}/issues/comments?since=${since}T00%3A00%3A02%2B00%3A00" | jq -r '.[] | .user.login' done ) | sort -u | grep -v -e '^forgejo-' -e end-to-end -e cascading-pr | sed -e 's|^|- https://codeberg.org/|' ```
Forgejo monthly update - April 2024
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 46s
f996bf6d6d
Ghost changed title from (削除) Forgejo monthly update - April 2024 (削除ここまで) to WIP: Forgejo monthly update - April 2024 2024年04月29日 08:26:47 +02:00
Collaborator
Copy link
Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_447/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_447/2024-04-monthly-update/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_447/news/9/
security section
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 41s
79a8cc111d
Ghost force-pushed 2024-04-monthly-update from 9e881e8ca9
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 44s
to 7a2be885c1
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 48s
2024年04月29日 10:20:05 +02:00
Compare
user research section
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 46s
2febebfa05
dependency section
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 44s
476012e2a6
Ghost force-pushed 2024-04-monthly-update from a7bf5328c4
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 51s
to f95a7ca562
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 42s
2024年04月29日 11:10:06 +02:00
Compare
@ -0,0 +101,4 @@
The [end-to-end tests](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end) ...
## Debian packages

@crystal for your review

@crystal for your review
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +15,4 @@
### Regressions and 7.0.1
Previous Forgejo releases were synchronized with the Gitea release cycle and usually published after the first patch release, when the most disruptive bugs or regressions were discovered and fixed.[Forgejo became a hard fork](https://forgejo.org/2024-02-forking-forward/) two months ago and it was its first major release. Two significant regressions were discovered less than 48h after the release. Their impact and workarounds were documented [by amending the 7.0.0 release notes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/RELEASE-NOTES.md#7-0-0) while the [7.0.1 patch release](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/RELEASE-NOTES.md#7-0-1) was prepared. All known Forgejo instances impacted by the regressions were able to avoid data loss.
Member
Copy link

I would remove the last sentence here: there is at least one known case where the LFS data was deleted. I believe they were able to restore it from backups, but that's not avoiding data loss, that's restoring lost data.

Instead, I would suggest emphasizing that as soon as the issue was discovered, Forgejo worked on a fix, and pushed out an update as soon as possible, and released 7.0.1 within four days.

I would remove the last sentence here: there is at least one known case where the LFS data was deleted. I believe they were able to restore it from backups, but that's not avoiding data loss, that's restoring lost data. Instead, I would suggest emphasizing that as soon as the issue was discovered, Forgejo worked on a fix, and pushed out an update as soon as possible, and released 7.0.1 within four days.

updated

updated
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +68,4 @@
Forgejo patch release. In such a situation the Forgejo admins and users are suffering the
consequences, either because they are left unecessarily exposed to
publicly known vulnerabilities or because their instance may run into
regressions due to insufficient testing.
Member
Copy link

I would remove these two paragraphs. The 1.21.11 blog post promised a more detailed deep-dive, these circumstances will be documented there. I think the circumstances are severe enough that it deserves its own blog post (which is why it wasn't in the 1.21.11 announcement), and as such, should not be part of the monthly report.

Perhaps repeating the promise of the followup blog post instead would make sense here?

I would remove these two paragraphs. The 1.21.11 blog post promised a more detailed deep-dive, these circumstances will be documented there. I think the circumstances are severe enough that it deserves its own blog post (which is why it wasn't in the 1.21.11 announcement), and as such, should not be part of the monthly report. Perhaps repeating the promise of the followup blog post instead would make sense here?
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +72,4 @@
If you discover a new vulnerability, you are **urged to not reveal it
publicly** but to [send an encrypted email](https://forgejo.org/.well-known/security.txt) to security@forgejo.org so
this situation does not happen again.
Member
Copy link

If the paragraphs before this are dropped, then this may need a tiny little rewording, it sounds a bit too aggressive and hostile, especially in context of the paragraphs before it. For what its worth, I agree with it, but I don't think a monthly report is the place to call out Gitea about their security practices - that deserves a post on its own (see above), and then a mention in the next monthly report.

If the paragraphs before this are dropped, then this may need a tiny little rewording, it sounds a bit too aggressive and hostile, especially in context of the paragraphs before it. For what its worth, I agree with it, but I don't think a monthly report is the place to call out Gitea about their security practices - that deserves a post on its own (see above), and *then* a mention in the next monthly report.

I removed these paragraphs entirely. Since the previous posts are only about telling what happens in the past, it does not seem to be the right place to make an announcement about a future event.

If you think differently please let me know and I'll make the change.

I removed these paragraphs entirely. Since the previous posts are only about telling what happens in the past, it does not seem to be the right place to make an announcement about a future event. If you think differently please let me know and I'll make the change.
Member
Copy link

All of them removed as you did was my preference. Thanks!

All of them removed as you did was my preference. Thanks!
algernon marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +86,4 @@
The [dependency update dashboard](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2779) is used daily to observe and update Forgejo dependencies. When a new release is available, [a daily scheduled workflow](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/.forgejo/workflows/renovate.yml) will create a [pull request](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?poster=165503) which:
- will be merged automatically, for instance if it is a patch upgrade from a dependency known to have a trusted release process
Member
Copy link

How about something like this:


When Forgejo became a hard fork two months ago, maintainers switched from rebasing weekly on top of Gitea to cherry picking commits instead. A tool has been developed to make this process easier, and automate as much of it as possible. As the tool keeps evolving, the weekly cherry pick pull request become easier to create, review, and even includes interesting statistics at the bottom of the summary.


Might be a bit too much. But I really love this tool, and am proud of it, so might be a little biased. Feel free to tone down the suggested text a notch O:)

How about something like this: --- When Forgejo became a hard fork two months ago, maintainers switched from rebasing weekly on top of Gitea to cherry picking commits instead. A [tool](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/tools) has been developed to make this process easier, and automate as much of it as possible. As the tool keeps evolving, the weekly cherry pick pull request become [easier to create](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/tools/issues/31#issuecomment-1792960), review, and even includes [interesting statistics](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3513) at the bottom of the summary. --- Might be a bit too much. But I really love this tool, and am proud of it, so might be a *little* biased. Feel free to tone down the suggested text a notch O:)

The paragraph was replaced with yours.

The paragraph was replaced with yours.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +83,4 @@
A [survey started](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/157) on **Exploring the Contributor Experience** where Forgejo contributors are asked to answer a series of questions.
## Dependency Management

@viceice for your review

@viceice for your review
viceice marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +94,4 @@
- groups of dependencies, for instance [postcss](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/27fa12427ce86cd81dbecd184b13a3dd3d7061d9/renovate.json#L7) where multiple dependencies are treated as one
- automerging [patch releases](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/27fa12427ce86cd81dbecd184b13a3dd3d7061d9/renovate.json#L80)
- adding [custom dependency detection](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/27fa12427ce86cd81dbecd184b13a3dd3d7061d9/renovate.json#L134)

@algernon for your review

@algernon for your review
algernon marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +54,4 @@
[Read more](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=0) in the pull requests.
## Security

@Gusted @fnetX @earl-warren for your review

@Gusted @fnetX @earl-warren for your review
Contributor
Copy link

good copy/paste 👍

good copy/paste 👍
earl-warren marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +75,4 @@
this situation does not happen again.
## User Research

@fnetX for your review

@fnetX for your review
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
Ghost force-pushed 2024-04-monthly-update from 1719c2a4b8
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 43s
to 0a75e3991b
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m23s
2024年04月29日 11:24:06 +02:00
Compare
@ -0,0 +115,4 @@
TBD
## Federation

@jerger for your review

@jerger for your review
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +117,4 @@
## Federation
The pull request to implement [federated stars](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1680) is passes tests and is ready for merging. It is a very large pull request and it was requested by reviewers to split it into smaller, more manageable pull requests. In the same way the large webhook refactor was done. The first pull request [was open and is its final stage](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3494) to validate ActivityPub messages.

@realaravinth for your review

@realaravinth for your review
First-time contributor
Copy link

Thanks for the heads up, the line referencing my PR looks great!

Thanks for the heads up, the line referencing my PR looks great!
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +95,4 @@
- automerging [patch releases](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/27fa12427ce86cd81dbecd184b13a3dd3d7061d9/renovate.json#L80)
- adding [custom dependency detection](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/27fa12427ce86cd81dbecd184b13a3dd3d7061d9/renovate.json#L134)
The [weekly-cherry-pick tool](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/tools) was significantly improved to help with collecting commits from the Gitea codebase that could be of interest to Forgejo. See [the latest](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3513) pull request it created and the [notes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/tools/issues/31) to better understand how it is used. Although focused on Forgejo, this tool could be adapted for any software that includes a codebase, either because it is a hard fork or because it is a dependency that cannot be included via a package.
Member
Copy link

The last sentence sounds a bit wrong... the "any software that includes a codebase" part. Perhaps "any software that routinely cherry picks from another"? I think that would better explain what the tool is for.

Otherwise it looks good, much improved, thank you!

The last sentence sounds a bit wrong... the "any software that includes a codebase" part. Perhaps "any software that routinely cherry picks from another"? I think that would better explain what the tool is for. Otherwise it looks good, much improved, thank you!

updated

updated
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
forgejo 7.0 section ( @algernon review)
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 56s
ea92a71523
security section ( @algernon review)
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m47s
978c88ce16
viceice approved these changes 2024年04月29日 11:30:58 +02:00
Dismissed
viceice left a comment
Copy link

❤️

❤️
@ -0,0 +84,4 @@
## Forgejo v1.20 end of life
With the release of Forgejo 7.0, the Forgejo v1.20 release is EOL (End Of Life) and will no longer receive security patches. The last of them was [backported](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3319) and made available in the [v1.20/forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commits/branch/v1.20/forgejo) branch for the benefit of source builds in April.

@earl-warren @thefox for your review (section Forgejo v1.20 end of life)

@earl-warren @thefox for your review (section Forgejo v1.20 end of life)
earl-warren marked this conversation as resolved
Ghost force-pushed 2024-04-monthly-update from 02f30b6411
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Failing after 24s
to 036485002e
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m13s
2024年04月29日 12:08:14 +02:00
Compare
code section
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 52s
3924ac8348
excerpt
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 52s
d462475bbe
@ -0,0 +207,4 @@
- https://codeberg.org/sbatial
- https://codeberg.org/sergeyk
- https://codeberg.org/shanzez
- https://codeberg.org/silverwind
Contributor
Copy link
I did not remember that but yes https://codeberg.org/silverwind?tab=activity&date=2024年04月10日
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
viceice left a comment
Copy link

you've dropped the helm chart major update?

you've dropped the helm chart major update?
@ -0,0 +65,4 @@
The work started early March on [Forgejo Usability](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/130) and [Designing a modern contribution workflow](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/131) led to 17 interviews [for which transcripts were archived](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/src/branch/main/interviews/2024-04). They provide material that can be re-used in various contexts, even for the benefit of forges other than Forgejo.
A short report [was published](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/issues/19) and led to recommendations published as [new issues](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/issues) in the repository dedicated to User Research.
Owner
Copy link

the information in issue 19 was published before / independently of the interviews.

I propose to replace the line with this information:

Some of the information already influenced decisions and implementation details in discussions, and there were numerous issues created in response to the user interviews, for example to improve the new repo units button (https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/?q=&type=all&state=open&labels=208298&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=179) and even feedback for features that are still in development, such as improving assignment to issues (forgejo/forgejo#3502).

A discussion on how to move on with user research was started in forgejo/discussions#156.

the information in issue 19 was published before / independently of the interviews. I propose to replace the line with this information: > Some of the information already influenced decisions and implementation details in discussions, and there were numerous issues created in response to the user interviews, for example to improve the new repo units button (https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/?q=&type=all&state=open&labels=208298&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=179) and even feedback for features that are still in development, such as improving assignment to issues (https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3502). > > A discussion on how to move on with user research was started in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/156.

the line was replaced with the paragraph you suggested, slightly edited (links & rewording). Does it look ok?

the line was replaced with the paragraph you suggested, slightly edited (links & rewording). Does it look ok?
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
Owner
Copy link

Drafted localization part: https://pad.gusted.xyz/s/ZDPkXRI2S#

The numbers are based on https://codeberg.org/0ko/forgejo-snippets/src/branch/main/i18n-pr-acitivty.md:

  • new translations are sum of deltas
  • improvements are sum of deletions (=changed strings, they're never deleted)

Would be good if someone else looks into this to make sure these metrics do make sense.

Drafted localization part: https://pad.gusted.xyz/s/ZDPkXRI2S# The numbers are based on https://codeberg.org/0ko/forgejo-snippets/src/branch/main/i18n-pr-acitivty.md: * new translations are sum of deltas * improvements are sum of deletions (=changed strings, they're never deleted) Would be good if someone else looks into this to make sure these metrics do make sense.
helm chart had one major update
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Has been cancelled
43b2f17456

you've dropped the helm chart major update?

That was a copy/paste and did not know if it was relevant, I restored it.

> you've dropped the helm chart major update? That was a copy/paste and did not know if it was relevant, I restored it.
user research section ( @fnetx review)
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Has been cancelled
588d654c57
localization section from @0ko
Some checks failed
pr / preview (pull_request) Has been cancelled
81d7dffd4a

Drafted localization part: https://pad.gusted.xyz/s/ZDPkXRI2S#

The numbers are based on https://codeberg.org/0ko/forgejo-snippets/src/branch/main/i18n-pr-acitivty.md:

  • new translations are sum of deltas
  • improvements are sum of deletions (=changed strings, they're never deleted)

Would be good if someone else looks into this to make sure these metrics do make sense.

The section was added with the content of the pad verbatim. I'll edit it when and if someone requires a change.

> Drafted localization part: https://pad.gusted.xyz/s/ZDPkXRI2S# > > The numbers are based on https://codeberg.org/0ko/forgejo-snippets/src/branch/main/i18n-pr-acitivty.md: > * new translations are sum of deltas > * improvements are sum of deletions (=changed strings, they're never deleted) > > Would be good if someone else looks into this to make sure these metrics do make sense. The section was added with the content of the pad verbatim. I'll edit it when and if someone requires a change.
dependency section @algernon edits
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 58s
be83fd25cd
Ghost changed title from (削除) WIP: Forgejo monthly update - April 2024 (削除ここまで) to Forgejo monthly update - April 2024 2024年04月30日 08:32:33 +02:00

you've dropped the helm chart major update?

That was a copy/paste and did not know if it was relevant, I restored it.

thanks, it's relevant. it brought Forgejo v7 🤗

> > you've dropped the helm chart major update? > > That was a copy/paste and did not know if it was relevant, I restored it. thanks, it's relevant. it brought Forgejo v7 🤗
crystal left a comment
Copy link

my approval only pertains to the relevant section about Debian packages

thank you @jean-daricade

my approval only pertains to the relevant section about Debian packages thank you @jean-daricade
@ -0,0 +57,4 @@
## Security
There is [no direct impact of the xz backdoor (CVE-2024-3094) on Forgejo](https://forgejo.org/2024-03-xz/). The infrastructure that powers Forgejo is not impacted by this vulnerability. Forgejo itself is also not affected, however if you run an OpenSSH server for Git over SSH you could be affected by this CVE.
Contributor
Copy link

Forgejo itself is also not affected, however if you run an OpenSSH server for Git over SSH you could be affected by this CVE.

it should be more about why the blog post was posted than a re-iteration of the announcement. Something like:

This CVE got a lot of attention and a blog post was published to explain why Forgejo is not affected.

> Forgejo itself is also not affected, however if you run an OpenSSH server for Git over SSH you could be affected by this CVE. it should be more about why the blog post was posted than a re-iteration of the announcement. Something like: > This CVE got a lot of attention and a blog post was published to explain why Forgejo is not affected.

Applied

Applied
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
0ko approved these changes 2024年04月30日 17:18:30 +02:00
Dismissed
0ko approved these changes 2024年04月30日 17:23:50 +02:00
0ko left a comment
Copy link

(Thank you! I like how the report is written. Codeberg upgrade part seems excessive but ok.)

(Thank you! I like how the report is written. Codeberg upgrade part seems excessive but ok.)
security section @earl-warren review
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m11s
f47662e976

(Thank you! I like how the report is written. Codeberg upgrade part seems excessive but ok.)

Excessive in what way?

> (Thank you! I like how the report is written. Codeberg upgrade part seems excessive but ok.) Excessive in what way?
Contributor
Copy link

Merged as there were enough approvals and the month is about to end anyway 😄

Merged as there were enough approvals and the month is about to end anyway 😄
Contributor
Copy link

For the record, https://floss.social/@forgejo/112361331017900627 was redacted as it did not fit the constraints of floss.social in the number of characters. Hopefully I did not butcher it. If I did make mistakes, please feel free to edit.

For the record, https://floss.social/@forgejo/112361331017900627 was redacted as it did not fit the constraints of floss.social in the number of characters. Hopefully I did not butcher it. If I did make mistakes, please feel free to edit.
Owner
Copy link

Excessive in what way?

I don't think readers would be interested in knowing about "Codeberg specific patches". This section seems like something that would be in Codeberg blog. It serves as an example that the upgrade is tested and usable even on large instances, but I see it as a section specifically about that topic and not primarily about Codeberg.

> Excessive in what way? I don't think readers would be interested in knowing about "Codeberg specific patches". This section seems like something that would be in Codeberg blog. It serves as an example that the upgrade is tested and usable even on large instances, but I see it as a section specifically about that topic and not primarily about Codeberg.
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
10 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!447
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/website
No description provided.
Delete branch ":2024-04-monthly-update"

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?