Alright, nobody is allowed to use the word "quietly" in headlines anymore!
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
And here’s the thing most people miss:
~robots are writing this junk~
Can I apply for an exemption?
Only if you do it quietly.
Don't we have GitLab and Codeberg already? I mean I'm here for variety and choice but this isn't grounbreaking
Hi, I'm the brave soul reading it for you.
Currently, the Dutch government's code is spread across GitHub and GitLab, neither of which is under government oversight.
GitHub got ruled out first because it's proprietary software, which directly conflicts with the government's own policy of preferring open source when options are equally suitable.
GitLab made it further in the evaluation but didn't survive it either. The issue was its open-core model, where the Community Edition is genuinely free software but the Enterprise Edition is not.
Forgejo came out on top due to its fully free and open source nature. Licensed under GPLv3+ and governed by Codeberg e.V., a democratic nonprofit, it has no enterprise tier, proprietary upsell, or vendor lock-in problems.
uhm, this is about a Forgejo instance. Which Codeberg also uses...
The idea is very likely sovereignty rather than just an alternative. Overheid.nl is a government website.
Fuck yes.
That's the genius of git: it's not tied to any website. Pull your repo from here and push it to there and you're cooking.
Git forges provides a lot of features these days now. From Merge requests, forks, issues tracking, secret branches, to team management stuff.
A lot more stuff gets bolted onto but they are arguably more optional but for some are the point lol
Like ci/cd at the forge level is the best to me for dev centric flows
Are you a git expert ?
The website around it is also just optional. You can dump git repos anywhere you want.
Of course the website is helpful and adds tooling, bit it's an extra nonetheless
Yep, amazingly flexible. If Linus had only ever made git, he'd have gone down as one of the greats.
If Linus had only ever made git, he'd have gone down as one of the greats.
As opposed to also having made the most used kernel in the world?
They're saying he was always famous and then did another thing that would make a person famous.
It is a weird phrasing then!
Yes, that’s true for the git repo itself, but a git forge can provide a multitude of related services, including issues and pull request management, CI/CD pipelines, wikis, static content hosting, package registries, etc. which are not as easily migrated.
Something's are more inherent to git forges imho Like forking, merge requests, secret branches, and team permissions.
I would prefer those be behind an API and fed into a more flexible UI honestly with the other panels being user defined views to other tools. Like a UI for tekton. A UI for Caddy or hugo or something. A UI for your issues tracker. Etc.
Even better if it federates those backends...
Maybe let the site admin have a list of approved views and configs so people aren't putting compromised views on the site.
I honestly think wiki, static hosting, package registries etc. don't belong on a git repo. Github has continuously extended their feature-set, but its caused vendor lock-in which I think is the point. How hard is it to spin up a web service to host static content? There are loads of good open source wiki projects, etc.
Depends on the point of the wiki I feel, if it's project documentation it should be in git alongside the code, if it's a generic "document store" then yeah there's better storage backends than git.
Some alternatives.. codeberg.org sr.ht
Will it have blackjack and hookers?
It's the Netherlands. It will have blackjack, hookers, weed and shrooms.
blackjack, hookers, weed, and shrooms
has a nice cadence for chanting repeatedly, possibly while standing in a circle around some tulips and holding hands
No, you want to be holding hands on a circle around a human skull with goat horns drilled into the forehead, the whole thing in a five -pointed star and covered with fresh bunny guts.
git init blacjack
git init hookers
It should be a European project not only for NL
A) It's forgejo, so any forgejo instance (including Codeberg) can access it (since it's federated.
B) Coordinating something like this eu-wide is much more difficult than in just the netherlands.
I don't think forgejo is fully federated yet. Unless they had a big release in the last week.
Just like the Fediverse, it's actually better and healthier if more people/groups/nations host their own (whether public or private). More diversity, less centralization.
The lack of clean and transparent federation between them is certainly inconvenient but is not a permanent roadblock, it is simply a known and well-understood technical problem that work is ongoing to solve. git itself already has very mature support for complete decentralization and decentralized workflows, it's all of Github's feature layers like user accounts, PR management, issue tracking, CI/CD and the various other workflow and project management layers that may need to be connected and federated across the different Forgejo-based platforms (and hopefully other platforms too in the future). Users and permissions and PRs and issue reporting are among the most critical parts, and I think they are looking at Fediverse's ActivityPub as a method for enabling much of that.
The more large organizations that choose to build their own viable, permanent and financially stable Forgejo platforms, the more attractive and necessary proper federation between them becomes, and the more assured it will become the first-class feature it needs to be.
We are not building a mere Github replacement that drops into its centralized place, wears its shoes and follows its same path to inevitable corporate capture and enshittification. We are building a decentralized standard to be the democratic foundation for future software development and collaboration that no one can, should, or will be able to exclusively control. It's not done yet, but this the right way for it to start so that something like SourceForge (for those old enough to remember that trainwreck) or Github never becomes a problem again.
Are you building up such a project ?
Hup Holland Hup!
Wait scratch that…
Hub Holland Hub!
Oops, I read the headline like the neanderthals are building their own github and got really curious!
why not just use codeberg?
They do use the same software. I think it is a good idea they run a separate instance, so the hosting costs are automatically covered by the government for the code they develop. This also avoids the centralization on a single provider.
Digital sovereignty. Codeberg is funding development of forgejo. Forgejo will federate to other instances. So you can have your own repo and someone on another forgejo can interact remotely. So no need for centralized platforms anymore. Power of the Fediverse! :-)
Is this an ongoing project ?

Isn't gitlab open source? I recall it was MIT license too
From TFA:
GitLab made it further in the evaluation but didn't survive it either. The issue was its open-core model, where the Community Edition is genuinely free software but the Enterprise Edition is not.