I noticed I was on 8 today. Running in Docker. In case this helps anyone else: Upgrade from 8 to 9 worked fine (just by switching the Docker label), then from 9 to 11 worked, and since 11 is LTS I'll stay on that for a while.
Was literally thinking about setting this up this weekend. If I can get renovate working to auto update dependencies, I can move off of github. To me, dependabot is github's killer feature
I have been using forgejo for a very small sideproject of mine and so far I have enjoyed it, but admittedly I use probably like 10% of the features. But sometimes that is all you need, and forgejo is quite nice and simple to configure and run so that works out. My impression is that it is much more lightweight (and faster) than gitlab, although I haven't done actual comparisons.
If you're running a public Forgejo instance and upgrading to v13, please take note of the post-release recommendation to run the `avatar-strip-exif` command to enhance user privacy.
Rant incoming... This is the least intuitive and least useful versioning system as a user and sysadmin that I have seen in a long time. Calendar releases ought to follow calendar naming conventions (eg. 25.3 or 20251017 etc.) and non-semantic versioning should try to be obvious. From what I can tell: "multiples of 'four minus one' are LTS" is the numbering scheme (but the software is only good for a year so... why not just call it Forgejo v2025 for its March release?)
The significance of Forgejo 13.0 is basically zero. A two-year cadence Debian release is newsworthy. Even if this were an LTS this is still not that interesting (unless there is some other context or significance that I'm not aware of).
v13.0.0 apparently has a nasty bug, recommended to upgrade to 13.0.1 directly: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/milestone/21377
For those interested in such things, 11.0.6 is the current LTS
I noticed I was on 8 today. Running in Docker. In case this helps anyone else: Upgrade from 8 to 9 worked fine (just by switching the Docker label), then from 9 to 11 worked, and since 11 is LTS I'll stay on that for a while.
https://forgejo.org/releases/ says 11 is supported until July 16, 2026.
Thanks. I'm on 9 and was wondering what the path would be like.
Oooh, thanks for adding moderation features before I even wished I had them!
I saw the links to merged ActivityPub PRs but it wasn't clear to me: what's the status of AP support now?
Still very much work in progress.
I believe you can follow the status here (Federation roadmap): https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/m...
Was literally thinking about setting this up this weekend. If I can get renovate working to auto update dependencies, I can move off of github. To me, dependabot is github's killer feature
Renovatebot works also really well, been using it with self hosted Gitlab for years
Same but with Forgejo and for the last 6 months.
I have been using forgejo for a very small sideproject of mine and so far I have enjoyed it, but admittedly I use probably like 10% of the features. But sometimes that is all you need, and forgejo is quite nice and simple to configure and run so that works out. My impression is that it is much more lightweight (and faster) than gitlab, although I haven't done actual comparisons.
If you're running a public Forgejo instance and upgrading to v13, please take note of the post-release recommendation to run the `avatar-strip-exif` command to enhance user privacy.
https://forgejo.org/2025-10-release-v13-0/#avatar-image-priv...
I'm still waiting for them to add sub-folder or groups/projects support like in gitlab. As soon as they have it I'm migrating away from gitlab.
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
I just create new orgs to group related repositories together. Works well for a small team.
Four major versions so far this year seems a lot
They release on a fixed schedule of once per quarter: https://forgejo.org/docs/v13.0/admin/release-schedule/
These aren't semantic version numbers.
Rant incoming... This is the least intuitive and least useful versioning system as a user and sysadmin that I have seen in a long time. Calendar releases ought to follow calendar naming conventions (eg. 25.3 or 20251017 etc.) and non-semantic versioning should try to be obvious. From what I can tell: "multiples of 'four minus one' are LTS" is the numbering scheme (but the software is only good for a year so... why not just call it Forgejo v2025 for its March release?)
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/-/packages/container/forgejo/ve...
At the very least, a stable "LTS" tag would help.
The significance of Forgejo 13.0 is basically zero. A two-year cadence Debian release is newsworthy. Even if this were an LTS this is still not that interesting (unless there is some other context or significance that I'm not aware of).
Rant over.