docs(codeberg): clarify Codeberg support positioning — Forgejo-native vs Gitea-compatible vs Codeberg-hosted vs mirror-releases #358
Labels
No labels
bump
major
bump
minor
bump
patch
kind
bug
kind
chore
kind
docs
kind
epic
kind
feature
loop/paused
mirror-drift
priority
critical
priority
high
priority
low
priority
medium
size
L
size
M
size
S
size
XL
status
blocked
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
frankenbit/release-toolkit#358
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Empirical finding (external cold-read round 2)
External reviewer named 4 distinct positioning claims that are all different:
Our documentation conflates them. External adopter can't tell what our claim actually is.
Blocking rationale
Adopters need to know if this tool fits their configuration. If they run on Gitea, does it work? If they use Codeberg as primary dev, does it work? If they mirror to Codeberg, is release-page mirroring supported?
Fix path
Verification AC
Anchor
External outside-model cold-read round 2 (fresh ChatGPT session, 2026-07-03 late) returned new findings after Pilot Cold-Read delta had cleared. External verdict: 'promising but not yet trustworthy.' Operator ratified delta plan 2026-07-03 23:35. This tracker addresses one of the round-2 findings. Success criterion: subsequent external cold-read returns no further objections of this class.
Delta merged via PR #364 at
886abbb. Positioning table added toREADME.mdnaming all 4 Forgejo-ecosystem axes explicitly (Forgejo-native ✅, Gitea-compatible ⚠️ UNTESTED, Codeberg-hosted ⚠️ UNTESTED, mirror-releases-to-Codeberg ✅) with evidence per row. integration.md cross-references the README table.