Design Discussion: ActivityPub support + ForgeFed vocabulary · Issue #14186 · go-gitea/gitea
github.com
#1612 discusses Federation in general but I wanted to open an issue for the ActivityPub + ForgeFed solution specifically and concretize this unit of work. Let's keep to discussing ActivityPub+Forge...

Git was designed as a decentralized version control system from the ground up. Yet it has been subverted by centralizing hosting and collaboration platforms that compete on projects hosting their code on them. Disagreements on where a project should be hosted regularly result in flame wars. But why, since we live in a world of federated services? If the Git hosters would federate, it might not matter on which server a merge request or an issue is filed.

The #gitea issue targeted at adding #activitypub is still open, but it seems to require in-depth architectural changes. So what would be the best bet for a Git hosting platform to be the first in entering the #fediverse?

  • smallcircles@lemmy.ml
    5·
    2 years ago

    With Gitea Ltd sudden incorporation, the soft fork of Gitea launched as Forgejo (which is what Codeberg now runs on) most of the forge federation efforts have shifted in that direction, as it offers the highest guarantees of remaining to the public benefit. Gitea has received a NLnet grant to add federation support, but it is unknown to what extent they are actively working towards implementing its goals. Those interested to learn more can join the Forge Federation general chatroom on Matrix.

    • dreiwert@szmer.infoOP
      2·
      2 years ago

      Exciting! Might also indicate that @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de could be a good choice for those willing to switch their #git hosting due to platform lock-in concerns because it’s likely that it would benefit from that to-be-implemented #federation support.