On May 22, Matthias Geiger <[email protected]> wrote:

I think at the very least it's worth exploring its use parallel to
salsa, so we aren't negatively surprised one day.

Good idea: I propose that once a year you report to debian-project@
a comparison of the features available in Gitlab and forgejo.

--
ciao,
Marco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQQnKUXNg20437dCfobLPsM64d7XgQUCaC8aRwAKCRDLPsM64d7X gXn3AP9J/6iep0nEgV10UjI1HfkGl3dBW3CgA3FxfoFHPHWhFAD9EfxKPfWQ6I2M tqlv1eB3vnlatTmuVzxX2a4WxqQtzgI=
=YHnf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The formatting of this was mangled so I couldn't figure out which parts
of the mail were quotes and which weren't.



--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ [email protected]
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:30:13PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

The formatting of this was mangled so I couldn't figure out which
parts of the mail were quotes and which weren't.

It's, again, related to format=flowed.

--
WBR, wRAR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmgvKTstFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh y04P/2Bl1FiSSPsMfno+77iXNO1I+KI+3vTF82OOPuT2a3PyZh/00UWeB703Z+b6 ybV1iGxIb30uwol5lw1bdPfij0Y6CW3hfipfdcbz8+OcL2RKYqdFg2HVNtrzBKWS f4xbr7XP0pyxMmiNUunrtoRQhNNHjwBpt9h8bjMW6Uw9H2MjxedsL0FuldrCOe9+ BLDZA/ElLRG/J6SkPzXQdxtz5V7+ilFNRXjdSOsov6WzfYvGfBFOwkGc8CQiwv6l vteQZLISUtnq0aVzpEZasu8fZApgOXXxzeFjjuekc/7MMXcxQ1WmhTsZryQnUD/H /QF01zDkx3gzv3IHzeiiyboRHhQL65Xmb0m2is8pdLL1oZEfuEApqc87FCRz1wiI 9PdxB8ilMV7UIgiPXfhXkIP97Lym8XIbYf5gj4tWuXBiecZumr7EtwTh4Ij86gzg ynVB5XmRWj9158pcKjsXmWqfKcRt5lgpMn1CtE1j2tQjj1IJh4IaR4C2T5ttll7u eusSrZXvUM18L3KZexcsqc/fB9RK9iv5Fk+RYJhRg9wxkenYNSzVg0qWAFt+DoU9 CtPo9elJgaWdZJ2U3NpHqtRScXDWieMEtiPBmO2Ykn1yBX/KLv3GLix3qo8WbaCl SX2vMbpyFpWz1Q+Q5HbSNg99R7apgUokjwkdYHVdjFLeQJxd
=RCV8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17602 March 1977, Matthias Geiger wrote:

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.

The 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.

--
bye, Joerg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/22/25 17:41, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

I *currently* think its not time well spent. Time from a *lot* of people, not just Salsa admins.

yes, *this*.

apart from what I already wrote [0][1], please try to not follow up on
this topic for now:

* there's no forgejo in the archive yet - the packaging needs to be
finished and a bunch of golang-* packages are in NEW. this will
take a while to be processed and to get everything perfectly right.

* there's a release to be made - please help fixing RC bugs everyone!

Regards,
Daniel

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/05/msg00319.html
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/05/msg00331.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 22 May 2025 17:41, Joerg Jaspert <[email protected]> wrote:

On 17602 March 1977, Matthias Geiger wrote:

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.

Thanks for the vote of confidence; I concur that this might be a nice
goal in the long run.

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.

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.
[0]

The 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.

Ah, I see, this needs some work then. Time permitting I will look into
this.

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.

Right, as stated in my mail, I think this is not something we should 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).

best,

werdahias

Links:

[0]: https://blog.codeberg.org/monthly-report-may-2021-preparing-the-new-server.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 22 May 2025 14:36, Marco d'Itri <[email protected]> wrote:

On May 22, Matthias Geiger <[email protected]> wrote:

I think at the very least it's worth exploring its use parallel to
salsa, so we aren't negatively surprised one day.

Good idea: I propose that once a year you report to debian-project@
a comparison of the features available in Gitlab and forgejo.

This is not was I stated in my mail; and it's obvious that both will
never be 100% equal in terms of functionality. This is not helpful for
the discussion.

best,

werdahias

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:10:54 +0200, Matthias Geiger
<[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Salsa happens to be one of the largest gitlab instances that exist.

Greetings
Marc
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 2025-05-22 at 18:10 +0200, Matthias Geiger wrote:

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.

FWIW: based on the "Explore" pages there seem to be ~161k repositories,
~157k users and ~11k organisations (~teams) on Codeberg now.


--
Jan Claeys

(please don't CC me when replying to the list)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17602 March 1977, Matthias Geiger wrote:

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.

I use forgejo for my own things. I like it. (Its 6 or 7 repos...).

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.

Right, as stated in my mail, I think this is not something we should
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).

Salsa uses a self-compiled gitlab, yes. It's one of the things that
would have to be explored/discussed in a session somewhere in Reallife,
with people from DSA and Salsa Admins. If we ever get to the point that
a switch is feasible. There is a lot that could be made simpler when
redoing the setup.
(Also, I would think it would be a flag week/weekend, rather than a
day).

--
bye, Joerg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17602 March 1977, Daniel Baumann wrote:

I *currently* think its not time well spent. Time from a *lot* of
people, not just Salsa admins.

* there's no forgejo in the archive yet - the packaging needs to be
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. Sure, it would be
nice to have it in Debian - but if you run this service, you won't
really be basing it on a package in Debian. But some other way to keep
it current. (It may be a package, even, but I doubt it will be installed
from the standard archive.)

--
bye, Joerg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/22/25 22:47, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

Honestly, the packaging is the least important thing.

the point I was trying to make is that the implied argument/momentum of
"let's switch from gitlab to forgejo because forgejo is in Debian and
gitlab is not" is all hypothetical at this point.

if there would actually be a consensus to switch from gitlab to forgejo,
it should be done because (after evaluation) it turns out it's the
better tool to fit the job - personally, I doubt that - while I prefer
forgejo, it does have less feature than gitlab and I think people
woudn't want to miss them.

if you run this service, you won't really be basing it on a package in Debian.

s/you/someone/

besides that, yes, I'm very aware that the setup of a large, HA forge is
way different from a setup at home ('sudo apt install forgejo' and be
'done'). I for sure do not expect people running it using the forgejo
package from Debian, however and given all the hypotheticals, of course
I'd merge anything that would make help/make it easier doing so.

Regards,
Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/05/25 18:10, Matthias Geiger wrote:

On Thu, 22 May 2025 17:41, Joerg Jaspert <[email protected]> wrote:

On 17602 March 1977, Matthias Geiger wrote:

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.

Thanks for the vote of confidence; I concur that this might be a nice
goal in the long run.

A few weeks ago I brought up a few points during a discussion on
#d-mentors about forgejo (and other alternatives to GitLab) and I
believe these points are also relevant in this thread:

a) Debian must plan a post-Gitlab future because GitLab (the org) will
stop one day providing FLOSS/DFSG-compliant sources.

b) That day is not tomorrow; there is no need to push too much now.

c) forgejo is the only viable forge alternative.

d) forgejo's CI (and external tools like woodpecker) are way behind what
Salsa CI requires and are not integrated UI-wise into the forge.

e) glab is a very good CLI; forgejo has no equivalent CLI.

f) It makes no sense to plan how to move away from GitLab before
forgejo(+CI) reaches parity.

g) Whatever replaces GitLab must support 100% of what is needed to run tag2upload (including all security-relevant details and assurances).

Regards,

--
Gioele Barabucci

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)