The author mentioned Forgejo, but why don't mention Gitea that is the direct fork of Forgejo without which the former would not even exist?
Why skip such a marvelous project that is still modern and inherits a marvelous amount of work within?
Perhaps like you, I did contribute pull-requests/issues even contributed to the Gitea project, and know people who did, too. Why do you mention a fork that changed the license and added possibly just a few if compared to the initial base repository of the Gitea and its Action Runner based on nektos/act they mentioned in their own fork even, too?
> Forgejo's code base (especially frontend) is quite out-dated, so nothing to do with Gitea.
>
> Source: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/6058#issuecomment-5351342357 [2026-08-20 04-25-05Z]
Yes, a fear of license change, forking, and maintaining by enthusiasts is sure understandable, and is a miracle, but it does not let you to just dim/negate/forget the so marvelous history and human effort that allowed the fork, with still so little but appreciated changes, to even exist.
2 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 21.0 ms ] threadWhy skip such a marvelous project that is still modern and inherits a marvelous amount of work within?
Perhaps like you, I did contribute pull-requests/issues even contributed to the Gitea project, and know people who did, too. Why do you mention a fork that changed the license and added possibly just a few if compared to the initial base repository of the Gitea and its Action Runner based on nektos/act they mentioned in their own fork even, too?
Is this how they rewrite history, but why?