This is an attempt to try fixing CI errors, as seen in 38dd33d Woodpecker run. Might not be complete, but the only thing missing is Apple Authenticator link fix, which is flaky.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/857
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Added a warning about the test delivery button being misleading for verifying pages webhook setup.
When pressed on a correctly configured webhook, it results in an error: `401 ref refs/heads/main not in allowlist [refs/heads/pages]`. This is both confusing and misleading; changing the branch filter also doesn't fix it.
I was helping a friend set up a pages site and we ran into this and were stuck until we guessed that the test itself doesn't work.
The docs don't explicitly say to use the test delivery button, but it is *right there* so we assumed we should use it. I think a note about not using it would help.
ty codeberg ur great
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/853
Reviewed-by: Catherine <whitequark@whitequark.org>
Missed a spot in #836 because DNSSEC was spelled weird. Also moved the
useful link to the DNSSEC verification tool to more relevant secions.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/837
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Today i encountered an issue while trying to push some lfs files to Codeberg: it would systematically fail.
After looking around I found this issue on Github: https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/issues/6043
And I thought it would be nice to have it mentioned in the documentation :)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/820
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Closes#411. I don't think a larger change is warranted here. The directions provided by settings/keys could be better but that's a separate issue (probably for Forgejo). Thanks!
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/807
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Updated git config syntax and added a warning for users that it's recommended to migrate to the new syntax.
This was suggested in issue #756.
Closes: #756
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/802
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Inline `code spans` are now mentioned alongsize bold and italics where it makes the most sense to have them, and the preformatted text document has been updated to show the raw Markdown for each example. Each of these documents also cross-references the other, as an aid to the reader.
Several sections in `preformatted-text.md` have been renamed for clarity, with `<a id="old-section-title"></a>` anchors such that inbound links with [fragment identifiers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment#Basics) (direct section links) should not break as a result.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/805
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
I’ve largely put down the torch of software development, but I use Codeberg for Nix and it feels wrong to use it without at least helping in some way.
Some language in the SSH key section can be easily misrepresented by skimming (e.g. the command to generate the key twice can lead newbies to maybe think they’d have to generate a public and private key seperately.)
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/764
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This came from the fact that on GitHub I'm used to seeing the option to sync a forked repo all the time. But whilst looking for the same thing on Codeberg I couldn't find it and searching the docs for `sync` didn't return anything either.
The additions in this PR are fairly conservative. Rather than rewording anything I've just added a section about how to accomplish the same thing as above but via the web interface instead of via git.
The other small change is an update to an image for making a PR from a branch which I'm assuming is older version of the UI as I couldn't even find the button that looked like that.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/791
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
I think that for someone just reading through the docs seeing "If you do not want **anyone** (apart from your fellow collaborators) to see your repositories" can very much sound like they're stored with "zero-knowledge", while finding the details in Codeberg's privacy policy is quite simple, there's no harm in making it clear in the docs as well.
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/803
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
