On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 9:53 AM Davide Cavalca dcavalca@centosproject.org wrote:
On 2024-12-13 13:18, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
# gitlab agreement It's a question someone asked me recently and in fact I have no idea/clue what to answer : what's the current agreement between CentOS Project and Gitlab and which features (limits / quota ?) can we use or not. Maybe worth clarifying ? I was just checking for features/seats/price and found https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/. OTOH, I was searching for info about gitlab.com hosted gitlab being free to use for OSS projects , and then found this : https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/ , and seeing that CentOS (old logo btw) is listed as open source partner so I guess we're then covered and no need to be afraid of the future ? (I see Fedora also listed there but Fedora recently decided to switch to Forgejo - https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-moves-towards-forgejo-a-unified-decision/)
This is a good question, and I don't know the answer offhand, but I agree with you that based on https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/ we should be in the clear. I will try to find out more.
# lookaside cache usage At the moment, we're still relying on specific cgi to let authenticated SIGs member to push to on-premises lookaside cache. Would there suddenly a need to evaluate using gitlfs, that they support ? (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/git/lfs/)
I don't think this is necessarily a requirement, we should be able to continue using the existing lookaside for now. Git LFS would be useful to explore as an option for future-proofing, but it shouldn't be a blocker here.
I would rather we didn't use Git LFS, because it's a pain (and sometimes impossible) to mirror.