forgefed
woodpecker
forgefed | woodpecker | |
---|---|---|
20 | 54 | |
982 | 3,694 | |
0.1% | 2.2% | |
5.5 | 9.9 | |
23 days ago | 6 days ago | |
Bikeshed | Go | |
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
forgefed
- Gitlab's ActivityPub architecture blueprint
- PyPy has moved to Git, GitHub
-
Harness launches Gitness, an open-source GitHub competitor
If you don't mind me asking since you're here: will you be implementing ForgeFed in Gitness [0]? My sense is that federation is our best hope for breaking GitHub's network effects, and I'd love to see more projects like yours join the protocol.
[0] https://forgefed.org/
- ForgeFed
-
Gitlab's plan to support ActivityPub for merge requests
From the comments, Forgejo is also already working on implementing ForgeFed, an ActivityPub extension specifically designed for software forges [0]. Judging from the issue, it looks like they're well on their way [1].
I have to say, I'm not super into the idea of social media, but this is a use for federation I approve of wholeheartedly. The friction of having to create accounts on X forges (where X is the number of projects that self-host GitLab) is a huge moat for GitHub, and federation could solve that very handily and create an environment where FOSS projects can feasibly host their own code away from Microsoft's control without horribly inconveniencing everyone who wants to participate.
[0] https://forgefed.org/
[1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59
-
git-appraise – Distributed Code Review for Git
> I agree that e-mail is not perfect, but... how is GitHub better?
Please look at my comment again. I prefer email to locked in forges.
> Devs like new shiny toys, and e-mails are old technology
There is one aspect where such forges have an advantage over email - a better user experience. Aerc and the likes all good - but Github and others provide a good user experience over a tool that everyone uses - the web browser.
> we should have something better than e-mail in 2023
We really should have something better than email. I'm saying this as someone who operates a personal mail server and a bunch of desktop services for it. It's really hard to get the setup correct.
In that context, it's worth looking at forgefed (https://forgefed.org/). It's a protocol for federating forges like Gitea and Gitlab. It's built on top of ActivityPub - which behaves a bit like email (it has inboxes and outboxes for every user). From the spec, it seems like pull requests happen by sending patches to the destination forge.
> Nobody takes the time to try the e-mail workflow (even though it's really two git commands)
Email workflow seems simple. But there are two things that make it complicated:
1. The patches don't specify the commits they apply to. It's simply assumed that they apply to the head of the main branch. The commits have to be carefully rebased on the main branch before sending the patches. It could otherwise lead to conflicts and a lot of wasted time.
2. Each commit/patch is send as a single email. Developers usually make frequent commits when they develop. Such patches can be confusing and hellish to review. A sane patchset requires the developers to edit the commit history, usually using interactive rebases. Each commit should contain a single feature and shouldn't break the build.
I consider both the above to be good development practices and follow them even on my personal projects. However, this is an additional barrier to entry. In fact, this may be a bigger problem for many than setting up git for email.
-
Leveling Up Your Git Server: Sharing Repos with a Friend
Another interesting topic to look into is forge federation. Forgejo [0], the code forge on which Codeberg is based is one forge software that intends to federate their repositories between server instances over the network using ActivityPub protocol extensions such as ForgeFed [1] and F3 [2] specifications.
[0] https://forgejo.org
[1] https://forgefed.org
[2] https://lab.forgefriends.org/friendlyforgeformat
- Sono Moreno di Morrolinux. AMA!
-
Let's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Option
> If you want to look into people who disagree with you: https://forgefed.org/
woodpecker
-
The worst thing about Jenkins is that it works
https://github.com/woodpecker-ci/woodpecker
-
Examples of Woodpecker (CI/CD) pipelines for .NET
Is anyone using woodpecker? It's a self-hosted CI/CD server forked from Drone. Really good, and actively developed.
-
regularly updating a docker image from source across several servers
Run your own container registry, build and host everything yourself, dont rely on others. Docker for example has a option for that but imo its very basic and limited. Harbor is more advanced but still not overly complicated. You could add build workers to that and automate your entire pipeline, but maybe for a single image thats overkill. But good to have those options in the future. Things to look at for example: Gitea (lighter) / Gitlab (more heavy), Drone.io, Woodpecker
-
GitHub: “Human eyes” will never see the contents of your private repositories
> I wish it had some sort of CI like github actions or bitbucket pipeline
I use Gitea with Drone CI and it works pretty well: https://www.drone.io/
Some might also prefer the Woodpecker CI fork due to the license: https://woodpecker-ci.org/
I setup Drone as a part of my migration away from GitLab Omnibus and have no complaints so far: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/goodbye-gitlab-hello-gitea-...
- Woodpecker CI: simple, extensible CI engine powered by Docker
-
What self-hosted Git server ?
https://woodpecker-ci.org/ Open source clone of drone.io
-
GitHub actions top alternatives
https://www.drone.io/ or the more open fork https://woodpecker-ci.org/
-
Codeberg – Fast Open Source Alternative to GitHub
I’m trying to migrate of my personal repos from GitHub to Codeberg. The biggest problem is to find a replacement for GitHub Actions (the free offering is so generous), and my current solution for that is to self-host an instance of Woodpecker CI [1].
I’d like to see even more diversity in Git hosting beyond “let’s all migrate from X to Y”, and for that to happen, Forgejo (a soft fork of Gitea) has already began implementing federation [2].
[1]: http://woodpecker-ci.org/
-
JSON vs XML
The open source version of drone is https://woodpecker-ci.org/
- Woodpecker
What are some alternatives?
kyoto - Golang SSR-first Frontend Library
drone - Gitness is an Open Source developer platform with Source Control management, Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery. [Moved to: https://github.com/harness/gitness]
gitness - Gitness is an Open Source developer platform with Source Control management, Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery.
Jenkins - Jenkins automation server
cicada - A FOSS, cross-platform version of GitHub Actions and Gitlab CI
gitlab-runner
killed-by-microsoft - Part guillotine, part graveyard for Microsoft's doomed apps, services, and hardware.
github-act-runner - act as self-hosted runner
git-appraise - Distributed code review system for Git repos
Concourse - Concourse is a container-based continuous thing-doer written in Go.
gitlab
onedev - Git Server with CI/CD, Kanban, and Packages. Seamless integration. Unparalleled experience.