Talk:Gitea

How to keep the version current?

The version listed is not the latest version and misses a number of security updates. My attempt to add the current version to the list results in an error on this page, but I don't know how to correct it. On the other hand, I don't think people should be misled to install an insecure version. 2A02:C7F:F6F4:4200:DAE5:9BC:AD9A:C64D (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it, it was an issue with things being labelled "preferred". Unbeatable101 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgejo Section

The section Forgejo fork is currently being frequently editing in and out of the page. Should Forgejo be included within this page, or should it not? Steve0Greatness (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am @techknowlogick. I wanted to clear up some things with this section (and the linked draft page). The project still maintains a community ownership model, with elections held every year (50+ people have maintainership status in the project and are eligible to vote). Regarding the domains and trademarks, Lunny created/registered the domains and trademarks outside of the project. Even as an elected project owner for several years, I never had access to the domains and trademark registrations, as they belonged to him. Claims of "silently transferring" trademarks (as made in the linked draft page) are false as they never belonged to the project, but rather being used by the project. Sadly, these claims were made by people who were never involved with the trademarks or domains and are now repeated as if they are fact. I have no issue or problem with forks, as there are many of Gitea, and am thankful for folks who follow the contribution guidelines to contribute back to Gitea even though it isn't required per the MIT license. I would edit the main page, but from my understanding, there are guidelines on Wikipedia against editing content you are associated with. (My usual username, was already claimed by someone else on Wikipedia, so I had to register a username similar to it) --Techknowlogic (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Until we have come to consensus, this section probably should not be removed from the body of this article. Steve0Greatness (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The latest revision is biased towards the project. Considering to remake the section into an article We should invite people to discuss here before editing. Ahri.boy (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: Protected due to edit warring Ahri.boy (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

What's the next? When will you remove the advertisment content? I think I have posted enough evidences and references here. You can find more information from the projects Github and blog. https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea & https://blog.gitea.com . If somebody forked wikipedia, should that be put into the wikipedia page in the wikipedia site? 103.152.112.176 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@103.152.112.176 then, I'd consider tag the section. Ahri.boy (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to do the tag. What's the next should we do to remove the advertisement? 5.34.216.37 (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As a famous open source project, the project have many fork projects. I don't think puting a fork here have any good reason. It looks like an advertisement. The Gitea community still have over 50+ maintainers and yearly election even if the company involved. You can find the information here https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#technical-oversight-committee-toc. And Gitea nowadays becomes more actively than before even there are many forks. So please stop adding advertisement in Gitea's page. The correct operation is creating a new page for your fork and announcement it forked from Gitea in that page. Should we put hundreds of Gitea forks in Gitea page? 199.230.105.54 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The change from open community to for-profit company was significant in Gitea's history and deserves to be mentioned, whether you consider the impact to be positive or negative. Forgejo was created in response to that and should be mentioned in that context (as should the open letter which led to its creation), however any more detail about Forgejo beyond that belongs in a separate article.

As for your claim that there are many such forks of Gitea, I would be interested in some references or examples. A Google search doesn't seem to back you up. SkipperGeek (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The community is still open, the projects are still open source under MIT. You can find the Gitea Community still have yearly election https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#current-toc-members . I agree we should mention the change and there is already a reversion for that but reverted by the current one. But I don't think it should include forks list. In fact, only 1 maintainer of 50+ maintainers of Gitea left because the event. Obviously someone lied. The names on that page are almost not maintainers and even not contributors of Gitea. So what did the names mean? If you don't believe, you can find the contributions becomes more after the company took part in. You can also ask these questions to maintainers on https://discord.com/invite/gitea . Since anyone can do a fork of Gitea because of any reason and I think of course . I don't think Gitea should list of them. And even they never said they are fork of Gitea on their README or runners' README. I know at least 3 except this one. They just forked and change for their aims but never claims around the world. At least, presslabs's, https://allspice.io, https://github.com/blender/gitea/, https://github.com/openmerlin/gitea and more. All these forks have good relations with Gitea Community which is different some fork which just cherry-pick commits for 2 years but never thanks the contributors of Gitea. 154.21.206.128 (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)