blog post for v8.0.0 #456

You will find (削除) the (削除ここまで) a short selection of the changes

also this could be better:

Forgejo 8.0 was released on July 17 2024

All dates in Forgejo use that format Day Month Year and changing that may be better but it would create a unification problem. Which way would you like to go?

I vote to keep it consistent.

I kept it consistent.

between less upgrades and less features or more features -> between fewer upgrades and fewer features or more features ?

It was removed for simplicity. It was convoluted and redundant with the first phrase.

include -> includes

direction -> directions

How do user work with Forgejo? -> How do users work with Forgejo?

month -> months ?

Another example is the new default for self-registration that only applies to new installations so as to not require a manual intervention to change the settings. -> Another example is the new default for self-registration that only applies to new installations to not require a manual intervention to change the settings.

copy/pasted 👍

Users reported successful upgrades of an instance Gitea v1.22 -> Users reported successful upgrades of an instance of Gitea v1.22

nit: has been removed

Removal of Microsoft SQL Server support
Would be more consistent with the style of other headers

Removal of Microsoft SQL Server support

copy/pasted

nit: "it" -> "we", feels more personal

as there are two necessary ingredients sounds a bit weird - although I understand what you're going for here.

I would go for something like That is a simple problem to solve, provided that the two following prerequisites are met (roughly)

The large majority (with a few notable exceptions) of the documentations and blog posts of Forgejo are in the third person. As I understand it, it is justified in large part because Forgejo is an inclusive project (an it) that does not belong to anyone (that would be a we) and has no boundaries (a we implies there is a them and the implicit notion that something separates those two populations).

This is a debate that should happen somewhere I suppose but it did not, as far as I know. In the context of this blog post do you mind if the third person formulation is preserved? If not for the reasons above, which you may not agree with, at least for the purpose of unification with the general tone of the documents in this project.

sorry for wasting your time on this, thanks for elaborating - this is fine and consistent with what Forgejo normally does, I think my review comment was not productive.

nit: recommendation: at the beginning of 2024, began early 2024 is missing a preposition

there does not seem to exist any Forgejo instance running Microsoft SQL Server at the moment is not substantiated and lacks some mild nuance (do we know what ALL of "our users" are doing?)

I'd recommend something like Long story short, there aren't any Forgejo instances that use Microsoft SQL Server to the best of our knowledge.

To keep it in the third person I went for:

The short version of it is that there does noone reported using a Forgejo instance running Microsoft SQL Server at the moment and the decision was made to remove it from the codebase.

We've a first User visible federation Feature. Propose to include sth. like:

The pull request to implement federated repository stars was merged. The feature allows you to define following repositories such as origin of mirrors or forks. If then the mirror or fork gets a star by someone, the origin repository will also get a star via federated ActivityPub like activity.

It is a useful tool for testing the development and experimenting but not something for humans to actually use, which is what these release notes are about. I propose something like this is added to mention the federated star scenario:

The ActivityPub based communication between two Forgejo instances is used by a new internal test scenario where adding a star to a repository on one instance also adds a star on a federated repository on the other instance.

So people who are curious to know more can figure out how to try it. And avoid the confusion that would happen if people are led to think there is a mature user facing federated feature with a good user experience to go with it.

Does that sound reasonable?

There is a new section in repositories setting UI if you choose to switch federation=true in the app.ini (see settings screenshot here: https://domaindrivenarchitecture.org/ )

For this reason it could be a good idea to mention it in release notes.

But if your argument is, nobody should switch federation on because it is experimental that would be an argument to leave this out ...

I will use

The ActivityPub based communication between two Forgejo instances is used by a new internal test scenario where adding a star to a repository on one instance also adds a star on a federated repository on the other instance.

for now and leave the discussion open. I will amend this section based on what you decide. I did not find a federation section in the user guide, did I miss it?

There is no user documentation. But it is not usable by a human to do anything at the moment. For testing, it is great. F3 is in almost exactly the same state: a lot of ground work and some embryo of a user interface. But nothing that can be used other than for development. It is not experimental at this point, it is internal.

We worked really hard on bringing the first minimum user visible piece of federation to the surface. So I am not happy about. But I accept your opinion.

I would be in favor of including it, maybe under an "Experimental" subheading.

Especially given the fact that this is a topic that is of high interest. That way, you can see more of what's happening.

We worked really hard on bringing the first minimum user visible piece of federation to the surface. So I am not happy about. But I accept your opinion.

can you propose a change to the release notes PR with what you have in mind? I'll approve that.

forgejo/forgejo#4483

It is in the release notes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/RELEASE-NOTES.md#8-0-0

Maybe: "The short version is that there is no reported use of a Forgejo instance running Microsoft SQL Server currently, and the decision was made to remove it from the codebase."?

There was evidently a bad copy paste here @jean-daricade ?

applied

The last part sounds like we don't appreciate the feedback. I don't think this is the place for a longer explanation, but a hotfix could be:

[...], rather than what they say think they want.

(emphasis only to illustrate the change)

applied

Maybe highlight the current release by making 8.0.0 bold?

applied

what is supposed to get into the last link?

Added the missing link https://forgejo.org/2024-06-monthly-update/

Maybe workflow_dispatch could be workflow dispatch here for readability. Those who are interested should get it anyway, right?
s/default/defaults (even though it's just one option, singular sounds wrong)
s/installations/instances
s/curated/curation of?

that have been in review for a long time - not needed in an excerpt IMO
Something like:
foundation parts for ActivityPub based federation and data portability were merged in, bringing these features closer to completion, but they're not available yet.

s/curated/curation of?

replaced with

careful upgrade of dependencies

to avoid using a fancy word.

foundation parts for ActivityPub based federation and data portability were merged in, bringing these features closer to completion, but they're not available yet.

Applied, much better.

s/Auto generated releases can optionally be hidden/Generated release attachments can now be optionally hidden.
s/the auto-generated archive/the generated archive

 ![New option](./_images/2024-06-generated-archives-1.png)
 ![Generated archives are hidden](./_images/2024-06-generated-archives-2.png)

BTW,

is different from the auto-generated archive.

@earl-warren is it?

I used:

Generated release attachments can optionally be hidden

and applied the rest.

@earl-warren is it?

Yes, the source tarbal has the VERSION file which is not included in the auto-generated archive. There is no way to figure out the version without it.

Self-registration is now disabled by default on the installation page. This is done to prevent creation of unmaintained instances with open registration that are abused by spammers for malicious purpuses. Currently there are hundreds of such Forgejo and Gitea instances on the internet.

Applied the first two sentences.

I did not re-use the last sentence because it seems controversial. Do you agree?

Currently there are hundreds of such Forgejo and Gitea instances on the internet.

Do you agree?

Yes, it's doesn't change the meaning of the message, and I would probably need to publish some markdown about my research to link here instead of just saying it.

Nitpick missed in the first review round, sorry: I think that the alt text should be slightly improved. "Page showing Forgejo Actions' workflow dispatch feature in a drop-down menu titled 'Run workflow'"

I would describe the alt text format used in previous blog posts as acceptable, see cef26b01bc.

As a reader expecting features or bug fixes, I was confused when I read this, because I thought it is a new feature of Forgejo like the Github’s dependency graph. But you can also keep it as it is.

s/watch over each of them/watch over updated dependencies/

The dashboard is not restricted to updated dependencies, it is listing all dependencies that can be upgraded in the future. Would you like to propose a rewording to clarify that?

It’s indeed nice. It would be very nice to add a small explanation (or a link to a pull request) how this can be achieved. Seems it’s mainly https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/renovate.json and https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/.forgejo/workflows/renovate.yml using https://docs.renovatebot.com. Maybe @viceice wants to comment on that?

a link to https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/developer/dependencies/ would be good.

Added a link to https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/developer/dependencies/

maybe better link to backport/v7.0/forgejo label (7.0)?

adjust release date

Apologies! There are two cases where I wrote lowercase "liberapay" instead of the uppsercase "Liberapay", which appears to be the correct spelling. Could you adjust this? Thank you!

also added a line break for better readability.

s/07-20/07-30/

s/20 July/30 July/

A reference to v7.0.6 & the licensing blog post is needed, I think.

It is released the same day as Forgejo v7.0.6 to address licensing issues impacting frontend features (APA citation format, mermaid ELK rendering and the display of contributor graphs). Read more in the dedicated blog post.

s/to prevent creation /to prevent the creation /

s/the Forgejo’s goal /Forgejo’s goal /

s/29 July/30 July/