| 1 |
On Tue, May 26, 2020, 23:08 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 20:24 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
> > The TL;DR is that a crack team of infra-folks[0] have been putting |
| 5 |
> together |
| 6 |
> > demos of CI services and things like gitlab / gitea / gerrit and so on. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Some of these come in combined (e.g. gitlab offers repo hosting, code |
| 9 |
> > review / pull reqs, CI services, and deploy services.) Some of these are |
| 10 |
> > piecemeal (e.g. gerrit has code review, zuul has CI) and gitea offers |
| 11 |
> > repo-hosting but CI is separate (e.g. drone.) |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > On the infra-side, I think we are pretty happy with repo-hosting |
| 14 |
> (gitolite) |
| 15 |
> > and repo-serving (gitweb). We are missing a CI piece and a pull-request |
| 16 |
> > piece. Most of the users using PRs use either a gitlab or github mirror. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I think the value of CI is pretty obvious to me (and I see tons of use |
| 19 |
> > cases in Infra.) We could easily build CI into our current repository |
| 20 |
> > solution (e.g. gitolite.) However gitolite doesn't really support PRs in |
| 21 |
> a |
| 22 |
> > uniform way and so CI is mostly for submitted code; similar to the |
| 23 |
> existing |
| 24 |
> > ::gentoo repo CI offered by mgorny. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > If we build a code review solution (like gitea / gerrit) would people use |
| 27 |
> > it? Would you use it if you couldn't merge (because the code review |
| 28 |
> > solution can't gpg sign your commits or merges) so a tool like the |
| 29 |
> existing |
| 30 |
> > pram tool would be needed to merge? |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Does GitLab count? Gerrit is just PITA. I think we had some concerns |
| 34 |
> about Gitea, so I'd like to test it before deciding. GitLab OTOH works |
| 35 |
> just fine for a lot of projects, and seems the next best thing after |
| 36 |
> GitHub |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Gitlab does count (we deployed and tested an onprem version.) I think there |
| 40 |
are some major issues with it though. |
| 41 |
- Licensing. Gitlab-CE is available, gitlab-EE is not OSS nor OSI approved |
| 42 |
and many of the features we need are EE only and are not available in CE. |
| 43 |
- Complex: Gitlab is a giant piece of software with maybe 8-12 components |
| 44 |
(unicorn, postgres, redis, memcache, sidekiq, puma, workhouse, gitaly, |
| 45 |
grafana, sshd,nginx, prometheus ..the list goes on) |
| 46 |
- I think gitlab ships with more features than we will use (CD, docker |
| 47 |
registry, issues / bugs, wiki, analytics, snippets, milestones, repo |
| 48 |
hosting, repo browsing, ... Again the list goes on.) I don't play to |
| 49 |
migrate away from bugs.gentoo.org nor wiki.gentoo.org, nor gitolite. I |
| 50 |
think if we did; then gitlab would be a more compelling option because it |
| 51 |
is a one-stop-shop solution for those use cases. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
My understanding of gitea is that it works great for not-::gentoo, but |
| 54 |
::gentoo and gitea don't work well and it would require work upstream to |
| 55 |
fix; other large repos seemed to work OK in gitea (based on our test |
| 56 |
deployment and conversations with gitea upstream.) |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Gerrit is widely used for large projects and I'm not worried for ::gentoo |
| 59 |
and we have deployed gerrit and it seems to work fine. Gerrit doesn't have |
| 60 |
CI (we would need to deploy something) and it uses gitweb for repository |
| 61 |
browsing (which we use today.) |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-A |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> -- |
| 68 |
> Best regards, |
| 69 |
> Michał Górny |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
Archives