[FFmpeg-devel] [POLL] [VOTE] code.ffmpeg.org

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 11:55 PM, Philip Langdale via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 13:43:57 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer <michael at 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
>>
>> all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
>> "F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
>> End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
>> (or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)
>>
>> After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
>> * apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the
>> Forgejo git (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)
>>
>> * extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
>>    (or someone else can set one up)
>>
>> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
>>    and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
>>
>> * and a month or 2 after that we can re-asses how many people use
>> code.ffmpeg.org and how many use the ML. Then we could decide to keep
>> using both in parallel or switch back to ML or just use
>> code.ffmpeg.org. Or in fact we could switch between Gitlab or Forgejo
>> here still as well.
>>
>> thx
>>
> 
> F.
> 
> I do not actually have a strong opinion, but I know Timo already got
> Forgejo set up, and so we should take advantage of that.

I want to point out that I primarily set up Forgejo since I have never 
done so before, while I have some limited experience with Gitlab from work.
And since I figured more people had never used Gitea/Forgejo before than 
Gitlab, a test instance made sense to me.

I can set up Gitlab in the span of one evening in place of Forgejo, so 
Forgejo already being there should not be a criteria.