Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 26 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 61:17:11 |
Calls: | 481 |
Files: | 1,072 |
Messages: | 96,147 |
I think at the very least it's worth exploring its use parallel toGood idea: I propose that once a year you report to debian-project@
salsa, so we aren't negatively surprised one day.
The formatting of this was mangled so I couldn't figure out which
parts of the mail were quotes and which weren't.
While it is not that mature yet and some features are still being
worked
on, I think it already suitable to host small, non-key packages.
On the techical side of things:
The CI runners use a yml format [1], which would allow (almost) a
seamless similar salsa ci setup.
I *currently* think its not time well spent. Time from a *lot* of people, not just Salsa admins.
On 17602 March 1977, Matthias Geiger wrote:Thanks for the vote of confidence; I concur that this might be a nice
While it is not that mature yet and some features are still being
worked
on, I think it already suitable to host small, non-key packages.
I would like a switch, but i think its currently not realistic.
On the techical side of things:
To give people a hint on what salsa hosts currently:
84459 projects (repositories)
16247 users
759 groups
33189 forks
16292 Issues
70945 Merge Requests
600795 Notes (not a type, yes, 600k)
8057 SSH keys
360 Milestones
838219 pipelines total
504742 pipelines succeeded
This runs on a machine with
8 cores
64G RAM (currently 27G used)
3TB disk space
plus whatever Salsa runners.
Ah, I see, this needs some work then. Time permitting I will look intoThe CI runners use a yml format [1], which would allow (almost) a
seamless similar salsa ci setup.
Only that forgejo is using an *entirely* different CI thingie/format and
one needs to adjust it all. It's github like, very different handling.
While it is not impossible to change, I *currently* think its not time
well spent. Time from a *lot* of people, not just Salsa admins.
On May 22, Matthias Geiger <werdahias@riseup.net> wrote:
I think at the very least it's worth exploring its use parallel toGood idea: I propose that once a year you report to debian-project@
salsa, so we aren't negatively surprised one day.
a comparison of the features available in Gitlab and forgejo.
Nice to have the raw numbers; > 16k users is indeed a lot.
The most recent number I could find for codeberg was 11k users and 12k
repos.
Nice to have the raw numbers; > 16k users is indeed a lot.
The most recent number I could find for codeberg was 11k users and
12k repos.
I would like a switch, but i think its currently not realistic.Thanks for the vote of confidence; I concur that this might be a nice
goal in the long run.
While it is not impossible to change, I *currently* think its not timeRight, as stated in my mail, I think this is not something we should
well spent. Time from a *lot* of people, not just Salsa admins.
do
*right now*, but rather something carefully planned (if the majority
agrees), and then switched on a flag day sometime in the future.
TTBOMK salsa does not use the debian-packaged GitLab, so IMVHO this
would also speak for the switch (use our own packages to host things).
I *currently* think its not time well spent. Time from a *lot* of* there's no forgejo in the archive yet - the packaging needs to be
people, not just Salsa admins.
finished and a bunch of golang-* packages are in NEW. this will
take a while to be processed and to get everything perfectly
right.
Honestly, the packaging is the least important thing.
if you run this service, you won't really be basing it on a package in Debian.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 17:41, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:
On 17602 March 1977, Matthias Geiger wrote:Thanks for the vote of confidence; I concur that this might be a nice
While it is not that mature yet and some features are still being
worked on, I think it already suitable to host small, non-key packages.
I would like a switch, but i think its currently not realistic.
goal in the long run.