32
41
Fork
You've already forked website
52

Forgejo monthly update - June 2024 #454

Merged
earl-warren merged 11 commits from :2024-06-monthly-update into main 2024年06月30日 15:07:27 +02:00

Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_454/2024-06-monthly-update/

  • draft the toot & the room announcement
  • verify there is no TBD left
  • verify all reviews were resolved
  • publish
  • toot (pin & unpin the previous one)
  • room announcement

Room announcement https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$SuaFtFCgWTLFv_skewOq00NfqD9QyrRA8Gg7ofoCbtQ?via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de&via=envs.net

@room the [monthly update was published](https://forgejo.org/2024-06-monthly-update/) ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities.
The [User Research effort](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/156) that gained momentum two months ago continues with a new round of [user testing sessions](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/issues/34). It is key to collect evidence about what Forgejo users need, a requirement to build a roadmap and reduce the [growing backlog](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues) of bug reports and feature requests.
Building blocks for both [ActivityPub federation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1680) and [data portability improvements](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3590) were merged into the codebase. They are not yet used for any user visible feature but they are a stepping stone. Their implementation was made significantly easier by the hard fork because they can rely on a codebase that is better tested.

Toot https://floss.social/@forgejo/112705759850940903

The #Forgejo monthly update was published ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities.
The User Research effort that gained momentum two months ago continues with a new round of user testing sessions. It is key to build a roadmap.
Building blocks for both ActivityPub federation and data portability improvements were merged into the codebase. They are not yet used for any user visible feature but they are a stepping stone.
https://forgejo.org/2024-06-monthly-update/

since='2024年05月30日'
(
 for repo in codeberg.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{forgejo,website,docs,tools,governance,sustainability,discussions} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{runner,end-to-end,act,lxc-helpers,forgejo-curl} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm 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_454/2024-06-monthly-update/ - [x] draft the toot & the room announcement - [x] verify there is no TBD left - [x] verify all reviews were resolved - [x] publish - [x] toot (pin & unpin the previous one) - [x] room announcement --- Room announcement https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$SuaFtFCgWTLFv_skewOq00NfqD9QyrRA8Gg7ofoCbtQ?via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de&via=envs.net ``` @room the [monthly update was published](https://forgejo.org/2024-06-monthly-update/) ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities. The [User Research effort](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/156) that gained momentum two months ago continues with a new round of [user testing sessions](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/issues/34). It is key to collect evidence about what Forgejo users need, a requirement to build a roadmap and reduce the [growing backlog](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues) of bug reports and feature requests. Building blocks for both [ActivityPub federation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1680) and [data portability improvements](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3590) were merged into the codebase. They are not yet used for any user visible feature but they are a stepping stone. Their implementation was made significantly easier by the hard fork because they can rely on a codebase that is better tested. ``` Toot https://floss.social/@forgejo/112705759850940903 ``` The #Forgejo monthly update was published ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities. The User Research effort that gained momentum two months ago continues with a new round of user testing sessions. It is key to build a roadmap. Building blocks for both ActivityPub federation and data portability improvements were merged into the codebase. They are not yet used for any user visible feature but they are a stepping stone. https://forgejo.org/2024-06-monthly-update/ ``` --- ```sh since='2024年05月30日' ( for repo in codeberg.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{forgejo,website,docs,tools,governance,sustainability,discussions} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo/{runner,end-to-end,act,lxc-helpers,forgejo-curl} code.forgejo.org/api/v1/repos/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm 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/|' ```
Collaborator
Copy link
Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_454/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_454/2024-06-monthly-update/ https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_454/tag/news/5/
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 05001c3383
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 44s
to 4801198961
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 20:36:41 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 4801198961
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to c406632442
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 39s
2024年06月26日 20:42:33 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from c406632442
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 39s
to d391188b85
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 20:44:28 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from d391188b85
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 99b4519925
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 20:57:40 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 99b4519925
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to c1528b77e4
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:02:33 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from c1528b77e4
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 95857d32f1
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:03:38 +02:00
Compare
@ -0,0 +108,4 @@
There are still countless improvements to be made for many languages and you can help to improve the localization too. [Learn how](https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/developer/localization).
## Sustainability

@avobs FYI

@avobs FYI
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 95857d32f1
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 99b4a90f92
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 56s
2024年06月26日 21:14:06 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 99b4a90f92
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 56s
to ecfccbb4cd
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:18:15 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from ecfccbb4cd
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to b6f8354361
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:26:13 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from b6f8354361
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 9b9ad5a564
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:28:33 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 9b9ad5a564
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 1d736e9a7e
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 36s
2024年06月26日 21:29:05 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 1d736e9a7e
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 36s
to 0f8b32e417
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 34s
2024年06月26日 21:29:52 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 0f8b32e417
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 34s
to e351227005
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:30:27 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from e351227005
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to eaa03e92cf
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:31:57 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from eaa03e92cf
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 887649968a
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
2024年06月26日 21:32:45 +02:00
Compare
Ghost force-pushed 2024-06-monthly-update from 887649968a
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
to 4ddb47a795
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 36s
2024年06月26日 21:34:51 +02:00
Compare
Ghost changed title from (削除) WIP: Forgejo monthly update - June 2024 (削除ここまで) to Forgejo monthly update - June 2024 2024年06月26日 21:36:57 +02:00
Ghost approved these changes 2024年06月26日 21:48:41 +02:00

F3 v2.0.0 is not quite ready, but it will be in a few days.

F3 v2.0.0 is not quite ready, but it will be in a few days.
Beowulf requested changes 2024年06月26日 21:57:58 +02:00
Dismissed
@ -0,0 +68,4 @@
Before engaging in more ambitious goals, they started to care for the day to day chores that keep Forgejo releases going:
- Implementing and reviewing [UI new features](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?state=closed&labels=87703%2c78139&milestone=6042) which is is particularly challenging because the test coverage of the Web UI is still very low.
Owner
Copy link

Shouldn't it be (swap new and UI and remove the duplicate is is):

Implementing and reviewing [new UI features](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?state=closed&labels=87703%2c78139&milestone=6042) which is particularly challenging because the test coverage of the Web UI is still very low.

Shouldn't it be (swap new and UI and remove the duplicate `is is`): `Implementing and reviewing [new UI features](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?state=closed&labels=87703%2c78139&milestone=6042) which is particularly challenging because the test coverage of the Web UI is still very low.`

Good catch, I copy/pasted your sentence instead.

Feel free to propose additional or alternate content if you want. This is a default in case you do not have inspiration but it would be lot better coming from members of the UI team directly.

Good catch, I copy/pasted your sentence instead. Feel free to propose additional or alternate content if you want. This is a default in case you do not have inspiration but it would be lot better coming from members of the UI team directly.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +104,4 @@
## Localization
TBD
Owner
Copy link

That's still in the works?

That's still in the works?

Yes, @0ko is working on it.

Yes, @0ko is working on it.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +17,4 @@
New feature requests are not ready to implement: they are investigated first, similar to how new bugs are triaged. A research and design process can be established, similar to what was done for the [summary tab for repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/4119) and bootstrap actual process for changes in Forgejo. This adds a step between what user needs and development, but since the backlog of feature requests is growing anyway, it may not be an issue. On the contrary: merging similar feature requests together can reduce the backlog of open feature requests and only the most valuable changes are implemented.
A new round of [User Research sessions](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/issues/34) started [based on an interview script](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/src/branch/main/interviews/2024-04/template.md) that was already used [in April 2024](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/user-research/src/branch/main/interviews/2024-04) during the first round.
Owner
Copy link

The new template is in the 2024-06 folder.

The timespan is 26 to 28 June.

The new template is in the 2024-06 folder. The timespan is 26 to 28 June.

I missed it 👍

I feel that my summary does not do justice to the magnitude of the effort. Feel free to reword and consider this a default in case you do not have the time to do so. Assuming it does not misrepresent what was done.

I missed it 👍 I feel that my summary does not do justice to the magnitude of the effort. Feel free to reword and consider this a default in case you do not have the time to do so. Assuming it does not misrepresent what was done.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +69,4 @@
Before engaging in more ambitious goals, they started to care for the day to day chores that keep Forgejo releases going:
- Implementing and reviewing [UI new features](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?state=closed&labels=87703%2c78139&milestone=6042) which is is particularly challenging because the test coverage of the Web UI is still very low.
- Backporting bug fixes to the sable versions ([7.0.4](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?labels=87703&milestone=6405) & [7.0.5](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?labels=87703&milestone=6654)).
Owner
Copy link

s**t*able (typo)

s**t*able (typo)
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +100,4 @@
The Forgejo helm chart had [two patch updates](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases), one for [7.0.1](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases/tag/v7.0.1) which depends on Forgejo v7.0.4 and another for [5.1.2](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases/tag/v5.1.2) which depends on Forgejo v1.21.11-2.
The [Forgejo helm team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/TEAMS.md#helm) was [created](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/136) was created, with and [two members applied](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues?q=application+to+Helm+team).
Owner
Copy link

@earl-warren is this correct? election isn't done and there are only a few positive 👍🤔

@earl-warren is this correct? election isn't done and there are only a few positive 👍🤔
Contributor
Copy link

There is a duplicate "was created, with" (copy/paste?).

@viceice it reads "two members applied" which seems correct to me. Otherwise it would be "has two members". But ... the election period is almost over anyway so it should be "has two team members" when the monthly report is published.

What matters in the election is that all impacted Forgejo contributors have been informed and got a chance to voice their concerns. If you think the proposal has been overlooked by people who should have seen it (stakeholders in the decision making process IIRC), they should be pinged to give them a chance.

Forgejo bureaucracy is in proportion of the impact of the decision on Forgejo as a whole. There was a lot of bureaucracy for the hard fork decision because of that. The impact of having a Helm team is confined to the helm chart and will have very little side effect on others. That's why I think it is not surprising nor a bad thing to have low input and little feedback.

That's actually a part I like about Forgejo: adaptive bureaucracy consensus 😄

There is a duplicate "was created, with" (copy/paste?). @viceice it reads "two members applied" which seems correct to me. Otherwise it would be "has two members". But ... the election period is almost over anyway so it should be "has two team members" when the monthly report is published. What matters in the election is that all impacted Forgejo contributors have been informed and got a chance to voice their concerns. If you think the proposal has been overlooked by people who should have seen it (stakeholders in the decision making process IIRC), they should be pinged to give them a chance. Forgejo bureaucracy is in proportion of the impact of the decision on Forgejo as a whole. There was a lot of bureaucracy for the hard fork decision because of that. The impact of having a Helm team is confined to the helm chart and will have very little side effect on others. That's why I think it is not surprising nor a bad thing to have low input and little feedback. That's actually a part I like about Forgejo: adaptive bureaucracy consensus 😄
Owner
Copy link

Ok, thanks. 🤗

Ok, thanks. 🤗

I changed to account for the fact that elections will be over when the report is published, good catch.

I changed to account for the fact that elections will be over when the report is published, good catch.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
update contributors script with sustainability & discussions
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 37s
cb0e73ff71
add translators to the contributors list
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
ace5080988
@Beowulf review
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 35s
0570aa738d
@fnetx review
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 34s
f944cd8cf5
@viceice & @earl-warren review
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 34s
e4d4a7cec7

Note that @avobs noticed contributors were missing from the list: the sustainability & discussions comments were not taken into account. That adds 9 more and the script was updated.

Note that @avobs noticed contributors were missing from the list: the sustainability & discussions comments were not taken into account. That adds 9 more and the script was updated.
@0ko localization updates
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 47s
7d5a2578c7
@ -0,0 +44,4 @@
- redis was once Free Software but future versions [are no longer](https://redis.io/legal/licenses/). Its protocol is not a standard but a few alternative server exist and [Forgejo is now tested to work with them](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4138). Only the older Free Software version of redis will keep being supported but the proprietary versions will not be.
- Safari is expected to support HTML, HTTP & JavaScript in the same way other browsers do, but fails some tests. The approach chosen was to [skip Safari testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3334/files#diff-d98036e3541a0bc9dcffae7c5b40a8bfeb670760) instead of finding a workaround. An effort is generally made to workaround the non-conformant behavior of Free Software Web browsers. But, for reasons similar to MSSQL, such an effort is not sustainable for proprietary Web browsers.
Other discussions happened on integrating Forgejo with third party software or services that are not Free Software and do not comply with a standard format or protocol ([Azure Blob Storage](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3989), [CockroachDB](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/174) and [friendlycaptcha](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4154)).
Owner
Copy link

It is called friendlycaptcha, but I think it's better to use the official name: Friendly Captcha, similarly to others on the list.

It is called `friendlycaptcha`, but I think it's better to use the [official name](https://friendlycaptcha.com/): `Friendly Captcha`, similarly to others on the list.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +72,4 @@
- Backporting bug fixes to the stable versions ([7.0.4](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?labels=87703&milestone=6405) & [7.0.5](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?labels=87703&milestone=6654)).
- Reviewing [upgrades](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?labels=223008) of [JavaScript packages](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/8afdafebf9fa2cb748a13e56ff3d865675ae27b6/package.json) and [other dependencies](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?labels=85536) that are used to build the Web UI. It would be relatively easy if every package consistently complied with [semantic versioning](https://semver.org/) and published descriptive release notes. But the norm is rather the opposite and each potential upgrade requires a fair amount of scrutiny.
An experiment to hire freelance workers to work on improving the JavaScript test coverage began to figure out if it leads to [results](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4252) that are worth the effort.
Owner
Copy link

AFAIK this PR is not related to the freelancer hired. And the conclusion made by @earl-warren in the UI room wasn't so happy. I don't think this is worth mentioning in the monthly update.

AFAIK this PR is not related to the freelancer hired. And the conclusion made by @earl-warren in the UI room wasn't so happy. I don't think this is worth mentioning in the monthly update.
Contributor
Copy link

Yes, it turned out to be a bad idea. Bad news is still news and is worth remembering, IMHO. I reworded:

An experiment to hire freelance workers to work on improving the JavaScript test coverage was conducted to figure out if it leads to results that are worth the effort. It was interrupted when evidence surfaced that the work was almost identical to what an AI would produce.

Yes, it turned out to be a bad idea. Bad news is still news and is worth remembering, IMHO. I reworded: > An experiment to hire freelance workers to work on improving the JavaScript test coverage was conducted to figure out if it leads to [results](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4252) that are worth the effort. It was interrupted when evidence surfaced that the work was almost identical to what an AI would produce.

copy/pasted

copy/pasted
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +76,4 @@
## Infrastructure
The [machine](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/developer/infrastructure/#hetzner0104) added last month is now in production and stable. It did not go smoothly because the hardware provisioned turned out to be unreliable and crash frequently. The devops team spent hours over a period of a week to figure out the root cause and stabilize it. This was not transparent to Forgejo contributors because the CI stopped working half a dozen time and stayed down during a few hours. But nothing was lost and the downtime was kept to a minimum. It happened in between releases and did not disrupt the release process.
Owner
Copy link

s/crash/crashed

s/crash/crashed
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +82,4 @@
## Releases
A tentative date was set for the [Forgejo v8.0.0 feature freeze](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/180) due [17 July 2024](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/developer/release/#release-cycle). It led to discussions about the requirements imposed during such a period and the [need to fix bugs when the infrastructure to write tests is missing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/180#issuecomment-2043685).
Owner
Copy link

This is a little confusing to read as it mixes mention of feature freeze with release date.

This is a little confusing to read as it mixes mention of feature freeze with release date.

A discussion regarding the Forgejo v8.0.0 feature freeze led to discussions about the requirements imposed during such a period and the need to fix bugs when the infrastructure to write tests is missing.

Removed references to the release date.

> A discussion regarding the [Forgejo v8.0.0 feature freeze](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/180) led to discussions about the requirements imposed during such a period and the [need to fix bugs when the infrastructure to write tests is missing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/180#issuecomment-2043685). Removed references to the release date.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +84,4 @@
A tentative date was set for the [Forgejo v8.0.0 feature freeze](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/180) due [17 July 2024](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/developer/release/#release-cycle). It led to discussions about the requirements imposed during such a period and the [need to fix bugs when the infrastructure to write tests is missing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/180#issuecomment-2043685).
[Forgejo v7.0.4](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/RELEASE-NOTES.md#7-0-4) (fixing [vulnerabilities](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/security-announcements/issues/11)) was released.
Owner
Copy link
1.21 had a security release too: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/releases/tag/v1.21.11-2.

Good catch. Added:

The security fix it contains was also backported and released as Forgejo v1.21.11-2.

Good catch. Added: > The security fix it contains was also [backported and released as Forgejo v1.21.11-2](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/releases/tag/v1.21.11-2).
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +110,4 @@
## Sustainability
The [grant proposal](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability/pulls?state=all&labels=217359) submitted 16 May for the [Free and Open Source Software Sustainability Fund](https://www.opentech.fund/funds/free-and-open-source-software-sustainability-fund/) is still pending review. In a newsletter OTF announced that they received 80 applications.
Contributor
Copy link

It was declined forgejo/sustainability#48

It was declined https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability/pulls/48

Updated accordingly.

Updated accordingly.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +24,4 @@
Notable improvements:
- [Better logic for showing user feed/public activity elements](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4189)
- [Minimal implementation for RubyGems compact index API](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3811)
Owner
Copy link

This PR was merged in May.

This PR was merged in May.

good catch, removed.

good catch, removed.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +29,4 @@
- [Implement tab indentation and list continuation in the issue editor](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4072)
- [Stars federated via ActivityPub](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1680)
- [Add cache tests for admins](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4213)
- [Support redis alternative, redict and garnet](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4138)
Owner
Copy link

s/alternative/alternatives
replace , with either : or -.

s/alternative/alternatives replace `,` with either `:` or `-`.

replaced with -

replaced with -
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +28,4 @@
- [Folding results for repo search](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4134)
- [Implement tab indentation and list continuation in the issue editor](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4072)
- [Stars federated via ActivityPub](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1680)
- [Add cache tests for admins](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4213)
Owner
Copy link

This feature is from Gitea. We ported it, but it's not directly related to improvements that are being done in Forgejo. It's fine to have these in release notes, but maybe we want Forgejo features in Forgejo news?

This feature is from Gitea. We ported it, but it's not directly related to improvements that are being done in Forgejo. It's fine to have these in release notes, but maybe we want Forgejo features in Forgejo news?

Removed.

Removed.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +41,4 @@
It is not an easy goal to achieve because software publishers keep deviating from standards or change the license of their software to no longer be Free Software.
- Microsoft SQL Server deviates from the SQL standard in [ways that required special treatment](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/2d9afd0c2194b60689717c2a9dc36284f012f7b6#diff-c286fd6672a72eeb3c97959eb3af0bf43959334a) and the decision was made two months ago to no longer include such specific adjustments.
- redis was once Free Software but future versions [are no longer](https://redis.io/legal/licenses/). Its protocol is not a standard but a few alternative server exist and [Forgejo is now tested to work with them](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4138). Only the older Free Software version of redis will keep being supported but the proprietary versions will not be.
Owner
Copy link

s/redis/Redis
s/Its/It's/The
s/few/
s/server/servers
s/keep being/continue to be
...

- Redis used to be Free Software, but the newer versions [are not](https://redis.io/legal/licenses/). The protocol is not standard but alternative servers exist and [Forgejo is now tested to work with them](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4138). Only the older Free Software version of Redis will continue to be supported, but the proprietary versions will not.
s/redis/Redis s/Its/It's/The s/few/ s/server/servers s/keep being/continue to be ... ``` - Redis used to be Free Software, but the newer versions [are not](https://redis.io/legal/licenses/). The protocol is not standard but alternative servers exist and [Forgejo is now tested to work with them](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4138). Only the older Free Software version of Redis will continue to be supported, but the proprietary versions will not. ```
Owner
Copy link

The first link doesn't actually work because of geoblocking on redis side. I recommend to replace it with https://web.archive.org/web/20240511181042if_/https://redis.io/legal/licenses/ (if the content is up to date). It will also be persistent which is good for an article about a change. A change can occur again.

The first link doesn't actually work because of geoblocking on redis side. I recommend to replace it with https://web.archive.org/web/20240511181042if_/https://redis.io/legal/licenses/ (if the content is up to date). It will also be persistent which is good for an article about a change. A change can occur again.
  • Redis used to be Free Software, but the newer versions are not. The protocol is not standard but alternative servers exist and Forgejo is now tested to work with them. Only the older Free Software version of Redis will continue to be supported, but the proprietary versions will not.

Much better 👍

> - Redis used to be Free Software, but the newer versions [are not](https://web.archive.org/web/20240511181042if_/https://redis.io/legal/licenses/). The protocol is not standard but alternative servers exist and [Forgejo is now tested to work with them](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4138). Only the older Free Software version of Redis will continue to be supported, but the proprietary versions will not. Much better 👍
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +100,4 @@
The Forgejo helm chart had [two patch updates](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases), one for [7.0.1](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases/tag/v7.0.1) which depends on Forgejo v7.0.4 and another for [5.1.2](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases/tag/v5.1.2) which depends on Forgejo v1.21.11-2.
The [Forgejo helm team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/TEAMS.md#helm) was [created](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/136) was created, with and [two members joined](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues?q=application+to+Helm+team).
Owner
Copy link

New link for joined: forgejo/governance#149.

New link for `joined`: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/149.

updated.

updated.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
@ -0,0 +98,4 @@
## Helm chart
The Forgejo helm chart had [two patch updates](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases), one for [7.0.1](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases/tag/v7.0.1) which depends on Forgejo v7.0.4 and another for [5.1.2](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/forgejo-helm/releases/tag/v5.1.2) which depends on Forgejo v1.21.11-2.
Owner
Copy link

@earl-warren in dev room:

https://v8.next.forgejo.org/ is deployed, with https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/, the first of its kind.

I think it worth mentioning, helm isn't just going to be maintained but used and tested by Forgejo too.

Config link: https://code.forgejo.org/infrastructure/k8s.

...and we should bring attention to v8 testing via that instance in Releases section I suppose.

@earl-warren in dev room: > https://v8.next.forgejo.org/ is deployed, with https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo-helm/, the first of its kind. I think it worth mentioning, helm isn't just going to be maintained but used and tested by Forgejo too. Config link: https://code.forgejo.org/infrastructure/k8s. ...and we should bring attention to v8 testing via that instance in Releases section I suppose.
Contributor
Copy link

v8.next is not ready to be announced yet, it still needs a little work to be stable. Given the time schedule of the releases and the monthly reports, I think it would be better to have a three weeks feature freeze. But that's a different matter.

v8.next is not ready to be announced yet, it still needs a little work to be stable. Given the time schedule of the releases and the monthly reports, I think it would be better to have a three weeks feature freeze. But that's a different matter.
Ghost marked this conversation as resolved
Member
Copy link

welp i knew i was gonna be included in the list :3

welp i knew i was gonna be included in the list :3
@0ko review
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 38s
0665d4370f
0ko approved these changes 2024年06月30日 11:09:09 +02:00
proofread summary & update excerpt
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 37s
d9d9eb0652

It is ready to be published. I really enjoyed discussing with Forgejo community members while writing it. That's a lot of collective effort during a short period of time. 👍

It is ready to be published. I really enjoyed discussing with Forgejo community members while writing it. That's a lot of collective effort during a short period of time. 👍
user testing sessions
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 1m3s
262e0f55b6
last round of proofreading
All checks were successful
pr / preview (pull_request) Successful in 40s
ee3407424d
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
9 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!454
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/website
No description provided.
Delete branch ":2024-06-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?