[0]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/m...
Of course, the practical downside of Tangled is also that it only has network effects within the ATmosphere, i.e. you still can't reach GitHub users.
Second of all, how could this just be an implementation-specific extension? The failure mode (of a client not supporting the extension) would be outright broken. To have name portability, the client needs a two-step to first discover the name's server before then connecting to that server. Whereas now (afaiu), the server is already identified by the name. That's a fundamental change in what identity means at the protocol level.
I'd love to be corrected by someone more intimately familiar with ActivityPub. But until it has mandatory (and mass-adopted) support for something vaguely like SMTP's MX records or whatever the equivalent for ATProto is, name portability is a distant dream.
Human-readable names are far more suitable as a handle for identity as humans think of it. And DNS names are an okay-ish implementation of that.
I think that a decentralized protocol that provides name portability based on the DNS is a far better protocol than one that relies on keypairs.
In short, they're actively working on making AT as neutral as possible.
[0]: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/taking-at-to-ietf
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-newbold-authenticate...
There were some times were Codeberg's general performance was noticeably worse, but most recently it has been fine.
If you thinking of migrating a project with hundreds of issues, I would do a test migration and practice a few different searches to test the result quality.
Then again maybe for stuff like actions and in general CI/CD it's not all that bad, you don't need whole team to know exactly how to write it, you just need to have a person knowing it. and it's generally not all that hard to learn.
CI/CD on github has the npm problem - a lot of tiny stuff gets wrapped in actions people pull in from all over the place. Github does relatively fast deprecations, so actions need to be rewritten and updated even though there's no need for you - in this context I'd argue if it's not a security issue there's no need. So you end up with a lot of work just keeping the existing actions working - and overall would have less effort if you'd have just written your own actions - but not doing that is one of the selling points for github.
I might be biased as I've been doing complex CI/CD for close to two decades now - but github workflows _very_ quickly show their limits when you start seriously using them.
Maybe, but for any complex project you get stuck with dependencies between various code branches and various CI repo branches anyway, so I’m not sure how much easier it really is to manage that complexity rather than just putting the CI code in your repo so that the CI dependencies are explicit.
Both forks originated for "philosophical" reasons, not technical ones and Joe Chen (@unknwon on GH) deserves a lot of the merit for building a clean forge in Go mostly by himself.
Codeberg is a website powered by Forgejo which is a fork of Gitea.
> Both forks originated for "philosophical" reasons, not technical ones
Gitea forked because one developer was the only owner of Gogs' repository and refused to share maintaining rights. The fork was more "practical" than "philosophical".
Forgejo forked when a leading developer secretly created a company with the trademark of Gitea and its logo. The fork was to gain back control over the assets of the project (name/trademark, logo, etc.).
I'd love to see something else though, a way to have repositories discoverable across all possible centralized or self-hosted services out there. What I actually do love about GitHub is that from time to time it manages to find for me some quite interesting projects and people to check out.
Why they didn't go with agpl is a mystery to me but oh well at least its copyleft
Is there any recent event or broader trend that explains this shift?
The two ends of the spectrum, both source available and copyleft licensed code shouldn't be used for training, but who's listening.
citation needed. first they need to know my code exists... spend time and traffic crawling it because it's sure as hell not going to be hosted on azure... probably get detected and banned.
If you believe in absolute cybersecurity for anything you keep online boy I've got news for you. Literally all you can do is make it tougher but it will never be uncrackable. The degree of it depends on how much you can invest and suffer.
same here. codeberg makes in tougher so it's a measure.
This is not to say that people shouldn't care about AI training. I was disappointed by the public response when they announced it. The GH ToS has conditions that allow them to use your code, overriding its license. Even worse, that still applies if somebody else mirrors your code there from some other forge. And they don't stop at that. I have noticed that they just scrape off code from source registries like crates.io in the name of security. I would be surprised if they didn't use that too for training their AI.
[0] https://ziglang.org/news/migrating-from-github-to-codeberg/
I think it remains to be seen how large this moment actually is, but it's something I've been thinking about re: GitHub for a while now. Also, I suspect the unrest around Windows' AI/adware enshittification and the forced deprecation of Windows 10 are casting a shadow on everything Microsoft-ish at the moment, too.
[1] The original Twitter thread that brought this up as a concept is https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588115310124539904.html. This is in the context of digital media outlets, but I think it's easy to see how it can apply more broadly. There are some other articles out there for the searching if you're interested.
I don't really have a choice but to use Windows and Visual Studio 2022 for work, but I've dusted off my Sublime Text license and have been eyeing migrating my personal repositories to Codeberg.
Everything else not important to them.
It does break and go down; and GHA are a real pain in the ass. But the basic hosting and PR workflow are fine.
It's still getting things done, for sure, but no longer pleasant to work with.
That's the real problem with Github these days. Too much critical information behind throbbers that take their sweet time. I find Codeberg much more responsive, despite being an ocean away and having the occasional anti-AI-scraper screen.
I help with one of the most popular projects on Codeberg, Fuzzel. I can say we get no shortage of issues and feature requests from being on an alternative forge. Indeed, we have plenty!
Those are meant to be mentioned in the README. Each of sourcehut's parts including the repo frontend, project page, mailing list, task list, documentation pages, etc are independent. There is no predefined way in which these are associated with each other like on GitHub. For example, I use a single mailing list for all of my FOSS projects.
This bit us recently at my work where there was an important MR needing review, and over 1/2 of it couldn't be viewed in the GitLab web interface by any means.
It's a (mis) "feature" they're aware of, and have no plan to fix before 2027 at the earliest.
Needless to say, we're migrating off it and recommend others do the same.
I think I was looking for something like Migadu[1] for git hosting. Cheap, private and for personal use. The best option is probably to self host.
I tried to fish out some ideas with an ASK HN thread but it did not get any attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46011054
I have started putting my new stuff in Codeberg. Some of the private projects have manually update private mirrors on GCP (free so far).
Gittea for self hosting is something I always wanted to try.
Bitbucket is slow to push to and pull from. From a reliability standpoint I have far more issues with Bitbucket than Github. The web UI feels completely off in a way that's hard to describe if you've never used it - it's like it was created as an afterthought or a skin on an older system, without any sort of craftsmanship behind it. There's also no source code search.
There's probably more, but quite honestly I try and stay out of the web interface of my bitbucket repos as much as humanly possible, so I shall stay happily ignorant of the rest. It's a shame, because I remember Bitbucket when it was the Github for Mercurial with a decent (if derivative) interface, and they allowed you to have private repositories without paying money.
Now, Bitbucket no longer supports Mercurial and Github gives you private repositories. Given those realities, why anybody would ever choose Bitbucket in TYOOL 2025 is beyond my ken.
This was incorrect, I misread the changes to the TOS.
Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution.
They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
But I'm sort of disappointed the end result doesn't seem like it's any better for users? (not blaming the author)
The benefits for the maintainer are also mostly philosophical... Which is a shame
I just tried Codeberg
- I get constant "Making sure you're not a bot!" anime girls
- The login with Github is hidden behind a minuscule drop down arrow. Seemingly intentionally obscured.. either have the option clearly, or don't have it at all..
- the format is identical to github with zero improvements to layout. It still has the README at the bottom, where you have to scroll past a billion files to even see what the project is about. Ex: https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot Why not just make the README the landing page, and then the file tree a separate tab? Or some horizontal side-by-side layout
Blindly copying the market leader and offering nothing new .. just doesn't seem like a winning strategy? It either indicates a lack of imagination or initiative. This space has some very clear room for improvements..
That's Anubis:
There is an unbranded version available, allowing image customisation under a paid tier:
https://anubis.techaro.lol/docs/admin/botstopper
The only other one I've seen deployed out there in any wide capacity is Cloudflare's.
Makes sense that Codeberg favoured an open and non-centralised solution.
You might just not be the target audience - I moved my project over to codeberg a few months ago[0]. In all honesty, I haven't really been happy with github for a while - as a user experience I think it's pretty solid, but it's been pretty increasingly more hostile towards the open source community (for example ignoring maintainers who explicitly don't want AI trained on their code etc), and I don't particularly like the idea of a single location/failure-point that almost all open source code is hosted on.
That's a long way of saying, I'm not looking for any changes to the market leaders features / layout - something that's a direct equivalent to github, but without the issues github has, is exactly what I'm looking for! Other people I've spoken to who've switched to Codeberg has said the same.
The good part is that if you have better solution you actually can suggest a PR and/or implement it for yourself.
The bot verification is not specific to Forgejo/Codeberg a lot of Foss project and organization use this method to avoid unnecessary bot traffic. I understand the issue you have with it but the problem is way larger than codeberg here.
Also about the login with GitHub button would be immensely annoying for the community : you came from GitHub and you might think that your experience is more important but as this is community driven and not a business the people actually creating and using the software don't need nor want to prioritize such button but leave the option for those who wants it, which is very nice of them. Eventually if the majority start thinking a GitHub login is preferred an issue can be created and a change made in that direction.
https://ziglang.org/news/migrating-from-github-to-codeberg/ for some more fresh ones.
I kind of wish there was a better collection of these.
> Running CI/CD pipelines can use significant amounts of energy. As much as it is tempting to have green checkmarks everywhere, running the jobs costs real money and has environmental costs.
Honestly I think the mention of environmental costs has likely made users hesitant to sign up. Mentioning it costs real money is reasonable. Mentioning the environmental costs is not; the environmental harm is equivalent to the population buying a few dozen extra cars, which can easily be influenced by random marketing decisions by automakers and dealers.
In my experience reprimanding tech savvy people for the environmental costs of compute just doesn’t work. It’s far better to rephrase things into performance optimization problems, which naturally pique engineers’ interest.
Consider also https://openssf.org/blog/2025/09/23/open-infrastructure-is-n... :
> Automated CI systems, large-scale dependency scanners, and ephemeral container builds, which are often operated by companies, place enormous strain on infrastructure. > These commercial-scale workloads often run without caching, throttling, or even awareness of the strain they impose.
...which implies that the load isn't negligible.
(I'm just keeping the metaphor alive because for me it is the primary blocker, whatever we call it.)
[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1786
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31627061
[3] https://blog.codeberg.org/we-stay-strong-against-hate-and-ha...
> Unlike other giant platforms, we do not encourage you to write “heavy” pipelines and charge you for the cost later. We expect you to carefully consider the costs and benefits from your pipelines and reduce CI/CD usage to a minimum amount necessary to guarantee consistent quality for your projects.
So much pretentiousness
If a project taking a stance against people spamming the n-word makes you lose respect for them, that says a lot more about you than the project.
> If a project taking a stance against people spamming the n-word makes you lose respect for them, that says a lot more about you than the project.
They weren't "taking a stance" against spam, they were claiming that FOSS itself was in danger due to a non-existent far-right campaign against them.
While I despise a lot of features on GitHub, Codeberg is sadly lacking the gravitational pull and visibility. I know, someone has to start, but as a single maintainer I need collaboration to keep the projects alive.
(I was told that codeberg may have dropped noscript/basic (x)html interop, which would make it no more interesting than microsoft github or whatng gitlab)
codeberg people have to be careful and acknowledge the following: expect shadowpaid hackers to ruin it because you are stepping on big tech toes. 99% of the time you will spend on codeberg will have to be to protect it and to keep it available, 1% (if not less) will be forge coding.
typedload was the most difficult because I test it on multiple versions of python, but woodpeckerCI does its job so I can still run the tests even after the migration.
For the other projects I have I didn't bother to set up a CI since it's trivial to run locally.