Hello, Adrien 'neox' Bourmault <n...@gnu.org> writes:
[...] > If I can help by sharing Libre en Communs' experience, I'll be very > happy to do so. I'll start here by explaining a bit what I have in > mind. > > Libre en Communs needed a forge software to be able to provide means > for people (both very technical such as sysadmins and less technical > such as designers or writers) for collaboration. We chose Forgejo > because of its stance for software freedom and because it was the best > solution available at that time as compromise between usability and > performance/resources. > > However, Forgejo is not perfect at all. We lack moderation tools to > fight against e.g abusers, there are sometimes very serious bugs (this > works better lately), and the default CI recipes/code depends on > docker.io images and nodeJS and npm. Also, the javascript generated by > Forgejo is minified, without a clear license header, making LibreJS > blocking it by default (and preventing people from being able to trust > it right away). > > About the CI, we decided to forbid using the default recipes advertized > in Forgejo docs, because we can't verify that everything is free on > code.forgejo.org, and we don't want our infrastructure to depend on npm > for the same reasons. > > Currently, it's possible to use Forgejo CI on our instance with runners > configured with docker (with a dedicated self-hosted docker image, like > a project on our instance does) but also with ssh on a dedicated host, > that can be a chroot. I did not have enough time to test with a `guix > vm` but that seems doable without too much pain. > > Please let me know if you want explanation on how we do anything, or if > I can help further. Thank you for sharing your experience with Forgejo; this is valuable input. The lack of moderation tools sounds problematic. Are there ways around this lack of tooling, or is it just not possible to moderate? -- Thanks, Maxim
