I switched from GitLab to Forgejo for my private projects after not wanting to deal with how slow GitLab's interface is anymore.

I still have proper CI, issue tracking, and all other features I care about, but the interface loads instantly and my screen isn't filled with many features I'll never use for my private projects.

▲

javier2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Is there any point to switch to Forgejo for my open source projects? Wouldnt I just be leeching resources from the guys at Codeberg/ whereever instead of Microsoft?

▲

xrd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I came here to say this. I switched to forgejo after self hosting gitlab for years, and haven't missed anything.

The article mentions the container registry as a prime feature of gitab. Forgejo has this, btw.

In addition, speed (of everything) is so good with forgejo. The resource requirements (napkin math, but...) are 10% of gitlab.

I see no reason to ever use GitLab again.

There are two minor annoyances for me, but not deal breakers. . First, I actually prefer the GitLab CI syntax. "GitHub Actions" is a mess. I suppose it makes sense to use the dominant gorilla (github actions), but converting to this CI was more trouble than it should have been.

Also, the forgejo API: it is much less developed. I did like exploring with GraphQL which is totally missing in forgejo. But, you have access to the database directly (and can use sqlite or postgres, your choice) so you can really do whatever you want with a custom script. Forgejo API and their infrastructure around it is just a bit more clunky, but nothing that was a major problem.

▲

SOLAR_FIELDS 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the reasons I like how lightweight GitTea/Forgejo is allows me to develop with argocd locally. Spin up a kube cluster with tilt, bootstrap forgejo, bootstrap Argo and point it at forgejo, now I can test Appset devs with sync waves locally

▲

javier2 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just tried it out for a bit, and it looks great and is super snappy. It seems the CI portion is delivered by a project Woodpecker? How does this work and is compared to gitlab CI?

	▲	bramhaag 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Forgejo has an integrated CI/CD solution, Forgejo Actions [1], that is very similar to GitHub Actions (and thus not so similar to GitLab CI). This is what you'll probably use if you self-host. Codeberg (a public Forgejo-based forge) also offers Woodpecker CI. Their hosted Forgejo Actions is still in beta AFAIK, but you can also use your self-hosted runners. [1] https://forgejo.org/docs/next/user/actions/quick-start/

▲

locknitpicker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here's a link to a previous HN discussion on forgejo

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753523

▲

cmrdporcupine 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Forgejo's code review tool slavishly follows GitHub (like a lot of other things it does) and so has the same inferior developer workflow that comes with that.

GitLab is no Gerrit, but it does at least support stacked MRs, and at least seeing comments between forced pushes / rebases, if not tracking them.

I use Codeberg, and therefore Forgejo for my open source project, but frankly the GH style workflow is not appropriate for serious software development. It forces one to either squash all commits or use <gag> merge commits. Many people have developed stockholm syndrome around this and can't imagine any other way. But it sucks.

The GH model encourages big-bang giant PR all at once development, and it's corrosive on productivity and review culture inside teams. And it leads to dirty commits in the git history ("fix for review comments." "merge." "fix for review comments." etc)

I worked with GitLab for a year and a half on a job, and I prefer its review tool for functionality, though not necessarily UX.