Remember, if all you need is a git remote to push to somewhere via ssh, `git init --bare` on your server should be available and is solid if you don't need a web interface. Now you've got something you can push to on a shared server.
Unless you really also want a web interface, issue tracking, et. al. Then, use any of these fine tools. Go wild!
Unfortunately, seems like this is Forgejo's best suggestion on how to compare the two: https://i.imgur.com/j1665QR.png. Not sure that page helps much if you're not already bought in to a free-software-absolutist mindset
I wish they had an actual feature comparison list. I've been trying to find anyone who can give me a list of non-trivial differences between the two; so far it's always either FUD about Gitea's governance and security structure or ForgeFed. The former has made me rather wary of the project[0] and the latter has been stagnate for years and I'm no longer convinced anything will come from it. Otherwise it's just silence.
Personally I thought Forgejo was doing better work on their actions runner for a while from casual changelog browsing but Gitea's been putting a lot of work into theirs. Otherwise it mostly still looks like a soft-fork in practice to me.
[0] Not that I'm thrilled with Gitea's semi-open-core setup and company but they make it seem like they're kicking puppies and dangling features over non-enterprise users head before snatching them away.
> This release contains security fixes. To give everyone time to upgrade, details will be added to this post in about a week.
Is this something that has been happening for a while or a new trend due to LLM concerns? I understand the reasoning, it just made me do a double take because I haven't really seen that before.
With Gitea specifically or in general? A lot of different software has silently included security fixes in updates combined with other changes and then later revealed what security fixes were made or stayed quiet about it all together, since long before LLMs could analyze changes.
Security researchers and malware authors would reverse engineer software updates of proprietary software, and scrutinise source code changes of open source projects to find secretly shipped security fixes.
(bias note: I am a project lead of Gitea) this approach is based on what peertube has been doing, and is being attempted as an alternative approach to what we've been doing previously due to feedback we've been receiving from the community.
Remember, if all you need is a git remote to push to somewhere via ssh, `git init --bare` on your server should be available and is solid if you don't need a web interface. Now you've got something you can push to on a shared server.
Unless you really also want a web interface, issue tracking, et. al. Then, use any of these fine tools. Go wild!
For anyone curious why they should choose one over the other:
https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/
Of course forgejo is going to recommend forgejo; a "comparison" article from them is an ad, nothing more or less.
They might still be the better choice. I don't know. But this isn't a reliable source for an actual honest comparison of two competing products.
Unfortunately, seems like this is Forgejo's best suggestion on how to compare the two: https://i.imgur.com/j1665QR.png. Not sure that page helps much if you're not already bought in to a free-software-absolutist mindset
I wish they had an actual feature comparison list. I've been trying to find anyone who can give me a list of non-trivial differences between the two; so far it's always either FUD about Gitea's governance and security structure or ForgeFed. The former has made me rather wary of the project[0] and the latter has been stagnate for years and I'm no longer convinced anything will come from it. Otherwise it's just silence.
Personally I thought Forgejo was doing better work on their actions runner for a while from casual changelog browsing but Gitea's been putting a lot of work into theirs. Otherwise it mostly still looks like a soft-fork in practice to me.
[0] Not that I'm thrilled with Gitea's semi-open-core setup and company but they make it seem like they're kicking puppies and dangling features over non-enterprise users head before snatching them away.
Thanks! Currently going through this decision process myself.
I suggest browsing through the release notes of the last 4-5 versions to see what you like more.
I'd argue project values, license and health are way more important.
> This release contains security fixes. To give everyone time to upgrade, details will be added to this post in about a week.
Is this something that has been happening for a while or a new trend due to LLM concerns? I understand the reasoning, it just made me do a double take because I haven't really seen that before.
With Gitea specifically or in general? A lot of different software has silently included security fixes in updates combined with other changes and then later revealed what security fixes were made or stayed quiet about it all together, since long before LLMs could analyze changes.
Security researchers and malware authors would reverse engineer software updates of proprietary software, and scrutinise source code changes of open source projects to find secretly shipped security fixes.
(bias note: I am a project lead of Gitea) this approach is based on what peertube has been doing, and is being attempted as an alternative approach to what we've been doing previously due to feedback we've been receiving from the community.
Bizarre policy. Any bad guys unaware of the security implications are analyzing the patch diffs as we speak, so this seems nonsensical to me.
Yeah maybe it made sense in the past, but not in the age of AI.
they skipped 26 major versions, ai is truly amazing
> Gitea drops the historical 1. prefix from its version numbers, so this release is 28.0.0 rather than 1.28.0.
Holy shit. They went from 1.27.3 to 28.0.0. These guys are hauling ass
They're even ahead of Apple. macOS 27? Nah, how about Gitea 28?
But far behind Firefox and Google Chrome.