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.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.centos.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.centos.org