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?
Codeberg _wants_ to host open source projects; it isn't leeching any more than adding articles to Wikipedia.
If you feel guilty, you can self-host Forgejo, contribute to Forgejo, or become a Codeberg member and pay them a yearly fee of your choosing (https://join.codeberg.org/).
Well, I have used a lot of Github Action too, and Gitlab is by far easier to do fairly complicated stuff with, but Github Actions has much better re-usability if you need to re-use or share parts of the job with all projects you build.
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?
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.
Yup. We just lost our "slightly below average" developers, but he was a nice guy and tries to deliver. But they have been slow to replace him, and now we are likely looking at 3 months before a new hire will just be in place, plus the new hire will not have the three years worth of experience the other guy had, so their project will likely be slower than at it already was for the rest of the year.
I’d take “slightly below average but is generally good to work with and tries hard” over “genius asshole” almost any day. Few projects require the latter.
There’s also the problem with how useless so many are at their jobs with no way to be sure until its too late.
That very much depends on the workplace. I was let go once for being 'slightly below average', because I kept foolishly spending the time to fix things in ways that didn't result in more bugs.
I literally inherited a dev once that was so bad we vastly improved velocity once he left. Every couple of months we fixed a weird bug in the code he wrote and laughed about it.
The middle manager loved him because we was very eager to work and always around
> I’d take “slightly below average but is generally good to work with and tries hard” over “genius asshole” almost any day.
I'd take either before the utterly dangerous "below average hard-working asshole" which tend to quickly rise to managerial positions and cause untold damage with their ineptitude.
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
Hehe, yes. The naive, but very hardworking developer is the most dangerous. He will dig you holes so deep nobody will ever find out if there is even any light in there.
We switched to gitlab at work about five years ago and this perfectly summarizes my experience. Add to that Gitlab projects also have a included Maven, NPM and python compatible package registry, so you can just push your package back in the CI pipeline is one of my favourite features as a smaller team. My least favorite feature is actually the sheer number of features. There is actually too many features. And the constant waiting. Basically every screen is just twice as slow as I would like to wait.
After using Stash for ages at work we switched to gitlab which was refreshing. It was fast, self hosted, and full of features, especially useful around quality gates and build on PRs. Then it was decided we should go for best of suite instead of breed and we went to azure devops.
It is slow as molasses, issues are more project management oriented instead of coding, quality gates are virtually non existent and builds are now slow. Builds are slow because instead of our beefy build servers they run on VMs, that are undersized and have IOPS restrictions, because downloading the cache for maven/docker/npm is relatively fast but actually expanding it on disk is slow, because just the simple orchestration to spawn a job is also slow.
I would love to go back to gitlab and I would even dedicate some time to performance tune it and contribute back. I think gitlab does everything right. (Technically, not sure about pricing and tiering.)
Yeah. As a dev, it is simply not always a great idea that the same person that built the feature is the one testing it. Sometimes I already tested it 100 times, and by the 110th time I basically become blind to it because I know it too well. Then its great to have someone with fresh eyes and without the detailed knowledge do the testing to see if it works and if it works for our customers.
This is also my experience with enterprise Java. LLMs have done much better with slightly less convoluted code bases in Go. Its currently clearly better at Go and Typescript than Java in my view
reply