CHChrisRR·Oct 1, 2026
Welcome to the issue which has been open since 2017
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029
In Gitea 28.0go-gitea
gitea
Go2016–2026
go-gitea / gitea
gitea
Git with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CD
132Distinct people
161Mentions
2Explicit recommenders
59KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Git with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CD
GitHub
Where it is used
- OpenSUSE/SUSE — OpenSUSE/SUSE uses Gitea at src.opensuse.org as part of their development workflows. They also contribute back to Gitea via pull requests. Source
What people are saying
I use Gitea and I love it. The network effects and reach of GH are holding people back from discovering / using / contributing to other forges (gitlab, gitea, sourcehut) that…
rapnie used a recommendation phrase. 2 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
- gogs/gogs · linked in 9 of the same discussions
- harness/harness · linked in 2 of the same discussions
Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year161 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2016-12-27 18:04:28 UTC to 2026-10-01 08:37:06 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 10 | 1 | 9 |
| 2018 | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 26 | 4 | 22 |
| 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 6 | 1 | 5 |
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 11 | 1 | 10 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 17 | 3 | 14 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 38 | 3 | 35 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 23 | 2 | 21 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 12 | 1 | 11 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 7 | 1 | 6 |
What Hacker News says
161 sourcesIt looks like Gitea made the same fix (rm -r .git after template processing) back in February: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/2176e84ab977011ff2b...
PR: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36734
So likely Gitea < 1.25.5 was vulnerable.
In Forgejo <=16.0.3 Critical RCEThis is the PR that started it all: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27455
In Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency ProjectsI have a correction for CVE-2026-20896 (Gitea trusted-proxies / X-WEBAUTH-USER) was not part of this dump.
It was reported by @rz1027 (me) as in Gitea's coordinated 1.26.3 security release, credited in the release notes. The exploitarium's actual Gitea PoC is a different bug (act_runner container-options escape).
Refs: [https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.26.3-and-1.26.4/] [https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-f... ] [https://hivesecurity.gitlab.io/blog/gitea-forgejo-nine-cves-...].
In Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-daysGitea is 10 years old, but official repo is still hosted on GitHub
3 points · Open discussion> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software…
– https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/LICENSE
If you don't want your software used like that, don't choose this licence.
You can't post-hoc decide how people behave.
In Migrating to the EUonly thing i found after a relatively quick sleuth
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/4175
In Show HN: GitClassic.com, a fast, lightweight GitHub thin client (pages <14KB)It's on the radar (as Gitea is also actively working on this - https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/35295), but I suspect you can not expect anything for a while:
"Upstream Proposal: Repository Grouping/Subgroups in Forgejo":
https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo-deployment/issues/224
"feat: extend Forgejo URL structure from organisation/repository to organisation/project/repository":
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/9550
In Forgejo v13.0 Is AvailableHere's an example off the top of my mind:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/go.sum
In Shai-Hulud malware attack: Tinycolor and over 40 NPM packages compromisedThere is a plan for hosting gitea on gitea: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029
In FFmpeg moves to ForgejoI bounced away from Gitea because they don't (last time I checked) have OIDC. I started[0] trying to revive-and-drive a previous PR[1] to add it, but the test failures are beyond my motivation to investigate and resolve.
[0] https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/33945
[1] https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/25664
In GitHub is no longer independent at Microsoft after CEO resignationIt’s coming in gitea: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/20311
I would be willing to guess that self hosting gitea as a backup mirror is less work than doing the same for Bluesky. But, just speculating
In Building Bluesky comments for my blogThe SAML support in https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/29403 seems like it will get merged once the MR is a little bit higher quality.
EDIT (bit better source):
> Gitea Enterprise is an offering of CommitGo, not the Technical Oversight Committee of Gitea or the Gitea project itself. CommitGo remains committed to contributing back functionality to Gitea under the MIT license.
Via https://blog.gitea.com/gitea-enterprise/#faq
In Gitea Private, Fast, Reliable DevOps PlatformI do agree with the author and others that I also wouldn't feel comfortable storing personal notes on Github. As I mentioned in a previous comment - you can use "git" without Github by hosting an instance of the open-source Gitea service.
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea
In Ditching Obsidian and building my ownThat's an interesting perspective, and I can't strongly disprove it, but that doesn't match my impression. I cloned both repos (Gitea's from GitHub; Forgejo's from Codeberg, which runs on Forgejo) and ran this command:
git log --since="1 year ago" --format="%an" | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | wc -l
to get an overview of things. That showed 153 people (including a small handful of bots) contributing to Gitea, and 232 people (and a couple bots) contributing to Forgejo. There are some dupes in each list, showing separate accounts for "John Doe" and "johndoe", that kind of thing, but the numbers look small and similar to me so I think they can be safely ignored.
And it looks to me like Forgejo is using a similar process of combining lots of smaller PR commits into a single merge commit. The wide majority of its commits since last June or so
Read the rest
seem to be 1-commit-per-PR. Changing the above command to `--since="2024-07-1"` reduces the number of unique contributors to 136 for Gitea, 217 for Forgejo. It also shows 1228 commits for Gitea and 3039 for Forgejo, and I do think that's a legitimately apples-to-apples comparison.
If we brute force it and run
git log --since="1 year ago" | rg '\(\#\d{4,5}\)' | wc -l
to match lines that mention a PR (like "Simplify review UI (#31062)" or "Remove `title` from email heads (#3810)"), then I'm seeing 1256 PR-like Gitea commits and 2181 Forgejo commits.
And finally, their respective activity pages (https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulse/monthly and https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/activity/monthly) show a similar story.
I'm not an expert in methodology here, but from my initial poking around, it would seem to me that Forgejo has a lot more activity and variety of contributors than Gitea does.
Showing the 15 most recent of 161 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.