On 09/04/2025 16:33, Shaun McCance via devel wrote:
On Tue, 2025-04-08 at 14:27 +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 13/12/2024 15:53, Davide Cavalca 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.
# migration to gitlab I know that Fedora, when doing some investigation about eventually moving projects to gitlab, have written a tool to easily export/import from pagure git repo itself (easy) but also the tickets/issues , so that it would not be lost, so eventually worth investigating ? (https://github.com/fedora-infra/pagure-exporter) .. and btw, migrating centos board project itself with issues would then be a good candidate ? :)
Yes, Neal mentioned this during the meeting as well. It's definitely something we'll look into and leverage, especially for repos such as the board issues one.
Cheers Davide
Hi,
I'd like to know the status about discussion for potential move to Gitlab. I tried to follow the recent board meetings but there was no clear statement/progress on this and I'd like to know in advance.
As announced, Fedora and CentOS public infra will have to migrate to a new DC/hosting facility this year (dates to be announced but probably
for centos - in Q3). That means that I'd like to know the status/future for git.centos.org and so if we have to migrate it to new DC, or not.
Migrating it wouldn't be a big issue though, but just something to consider.
Davide and I met with Nick from GitLab yesterday to talk about this. In terms of resource usage, it looks like we're nowhere near any limits, and he was happy to work with us if we do reach that point. I know there were a few other concerns (Davide brought up nested virt in runners), but I think they're all solvable.
I think it would be good for us to put together a migration list of repositories, how big they are, and what kind of CI resources they use. What would be the best place for that? HackMD? GitLab issue? Google doc? Some of them will create work for you, but not all of them, I think.
-- Shaun
As you raised the question about repositories : has the board already discussed this with Red Hat legal about what to do for the el7/el8 sources that were pushed to git.centos.org ? Can we drop these ? (I guess answer is no) Can they be migrated to redhat namespace on gitlab (like https://gitlab.com/redhat/rhel/rpms) ? Or can they be migrated to centos namespace instead ? (https://gitlab.com/centos/)