On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 at 13:44, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > Hi all > > Do people want Forgejo or Gitlab on code.ffmpeg.org for testing? > > F. code.ffmpeg.org should run Forgejo > G. code.ffmpeg.org should run Gitlab
I cannot tell. While Forgejo looks fine on the surface, the devil is in the details. I know GitLab and its (dis)advantages. Forgejo is unknown to me, except from a limited look, so it's hard to make educated guess if it will work fine. As for the performance argument, is this something that was measured? I agree GitLab can be slow, but what makes you believe Forgejo is faster? Comparing videolan's GitLab without any scraping protection in place to the test instance of ffmpeg's Forgejo is comparing apples and oranges, they are different in size and use atm. Also, while I understand the reluctance due to GitLab’s corporate background, this ensures that it is maintained, supported and is already more mature. What's the difference between a company "pulling the plug" and Forgejo becoming unmaintained over the years, or lacking fixes/improvements due to a lack of interest/funding? And don't give me "Forgejo is open source, we can maintain it", I'm sure none of ffmpeg contributors would be interested in maininging Forgejo. That said, I think both choices would be fine. Whatever we chose it would be adaptation to a new environment anyway. I think for basic code/patches management both are fine, for all the stuff around that, like CI, it's hard to say. - Kacper _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
