None of the really heavy hitters from the "core team" have left. As long as 100% FOSS Gitea pulls ahead in functionality, and can be downgraded relatively easily with an hour of work, I personally see no reason to move anywhere. You can part in different ways, the vibes you give off certainly matter, even when you're 100% technically correct.
And I suggested comparing releases, not commits; Gitea is ahead here both in what it supported at the moment of the hard fork, and in what has been introduced since then (counting only the MIT version).
> And I suggested comparing releases, not commits...
Who's asking for all those new features? Enterprise users? I love the old Gitea because it was light enough to run on a Raspberry Pi Zero. I've been delaying trying Forgejo due to concerns about bloat, but you've just sold it to me. All I need for it is to mirror Git repositories I care about every couple of days. Like gp, I consider Gogs/Gitea to have been feature-complete years ago
Thank You. It was an obvious question as to why Forejo. Something that is not popular and not well known for many compared to Gitea. And what happened with the fork. I thought it should have been the first question on HN. Instead, even when asked it is not upvoted, and when it does, it is at the bottom of the comments section.
From the context in that mailing list it does seems there is more to it. Not to mention Gitea is still MIT license and continued development. But competition is good, I hope both project do well.
And I suggested comparing releases, not commits; Gitea is ahead here both in what it supported at the moment of the hard fork, and in what has been introduced since then (counting only the MIT version).