Hi guys,
I maintain the official gitlab packages gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-runner, gitlab-shell, gitlab-workhorse and python-gitlab. Out of these, I'll be dropping gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-shell and gitlab-workhorse because they are way too much work to maintain and I can't keep up and the result isn't great.
Currently known bugs: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/62837 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/63679 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/63688 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/63935 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/63950 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64337 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64887
Unless any other masochistic TU really wants to feel the pain, I'll be dropping them in about two weeks.
Sven
Hi
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 11:00 PM Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote:
Hi guys,
I maintain the official gitlab packages gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-runner, gitlab-shell, gitlab-workhorse and python-gitlab. Out of these, I'll be dropping gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-shell and gitlab-workhorse because they are way too much work to maintain and I can't keep up and the result isn't great.
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 23:18, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 11:00 PM Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote:
Hi guys,
I maintain the official gitlab packages gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-runner, gitlab-shell, gitlab-workhorse and python-gitlab. Out of these, I'll be dropping gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-shell and gitlab-workhorse because they are way too much work to maintain and I
can't
keep up and the result isn't great.
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
That is entirely orthogonal because we're using Docker for that currently anyway as we'll use their Enterprise Edition offering which we didn't package.
Thanks for the reply.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 2:20 PM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
I maintain the official gitlab packages gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-runner, gitlab-shell, gitlab-workhorse and python-gitlab. Out of these, I'll be dropping gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-shell and gitlab-workhorse because they are way too much work to maintain and I can't keep up and the result isn't great.
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
That is entirely orthogonal because we're using Docker for that currently anyway as we'll use their Enterprise Edition offering which we didn't package.
I probably missed this discussion so I am out of context. But what is the reason we prefer Docker+EE versus using a plain Arch package for GitLab community edition?
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 2:20 PM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
I maintain the official gitlab packages gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-runner, gitlab-shell, gitlab-workhorse and python-gitlab. Out
of
these, I'll be dropping gitlab, gitlab-gitaly, gitlab-shell and gitlab-workhorse because they are way too much work to maintain and I
can't
keep up and the result isn't great.
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
That is entirely orthogonal because we're using Docker for that
currently anyway as we'll use their Enterprise Edition offering which we didn't package.
I probably missed this discussion so I am out of context. But what is the reason we prefer Docker+EE versus using a plain Arch package for GitLab community edition?
Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks the packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they don't care about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package their EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless packages and it's time to cut those losses.
On Thu, 2019-12-26 at 01:51 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov < Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks the packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they don't care about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package their EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless packages and it's time to cut those losses.
Hello,
Both Docker images work flawlessly since years (they are officially supported). I guess the question was more about EE vs CE. I recently noticed than well known opensource distro now use the CE.
Regards,
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 18:14 Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-26 at 01:51 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov < Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks the packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they don't
care
about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package
their
EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless packages and it's time to cut those losses.
Hello,
Both Docker images work flawlessly since years (they are officially supported). I guess the question was more about EE vs CE. I recently noticed than well known opensource distro now use the CE.
Regards,
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
Let's not go further in this direction please. This thread is about dropping/passing on maintenance of the gitlab packages. Hopefully some other TU can show these packages some love.
Hello Sven-Hendrik
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 18:14 Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-26 at 01:51 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov < Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks the packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they don't care about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package their EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless packages and it's time to cut those losses.
Hello,
Both Docker images work flawlessly since years (they are officially supported). I guess the question was more about EE vs CE. I recently noticed than well known opensource distro now use the CE.
Regards,
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
Let's not go further in this direction please. This thread is about dropping/passing on maintenance of the gitlab packages. Hopefully some other TU can show these packages some love.
I think that the question of maintaining 'gitlab' package in [community] is relevant to our future plans. If we want to go with gitlab to manage our repos then I propose to use the Arch package instead of a Docker image. The advantage of using the Arch package is: - we show that we trust our own packaging abilities - we put ourselves into our user's shoes. Using 'gitlab' package at our server will help us understand how other users deal with such systems. What are their pain points. Maybe it will force us to rethink how do we manage ruby releases or maybe we come up with better bundler integration or something else.
So we need to decide whether we want to use the Arch package or the docker image. If Arch package is the preferable option then it should stay in the repo.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 09:26 Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Sven-Hendrik
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 18:14 Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net
wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-26 at 01:51 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov < Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks
the
packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they
don't care
about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package
their
EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless
packages
and it's time to cut those losses.
Hello,
Both Docker images work flawlessly since years (they are officially
supported).
I guess the question was more about EE vs CE. I recently noticed than well known opensource distro now use the CE.
Regards,
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
Let's not go further in this direction please. This thread is about
dropping/passing on maintenance of the gitlab packages. Hopefully some other TU can show these packages some love.
I think that the question of maintaining 'gitlab' package in [community] is relevant to our future plans. If we want to go with gitlab to manage our repos then I propose to use the Arch package instead of a Docker image. The advantage of using the Arch package is:
- we show that we trust our own packaging abilities
- we put ourselves into our user's shoes. Using 'gitlab' package at
our server will help us understand how other users deal with such systems. What are their pain points. Maybe it will force us to rethink how do we manage ruby releases or maybe we come up with better bundler integration or something else.
So we need to decide whether we want to use the Arch package or the docker image. If Arch package is the preferable option then it should stay in the repo.
The whole point of this is that we don't trust our gitlab packages. I wouldn't build our arch code hosting on those packages from what I've seen in the past. In fact, even if those packages found a maintainer again, I'd be opposed to actually using them ourselves in the short term.
One example of why I don't trust them: sometimes gitlab tags a security release which would in theory need to be released quickly but then fails to build so it stays vulnerable for a few days until I can get the build fixed. This doesn't happen with the docker images.
I think the docker image is by far the preferable option for the time being.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 09:26 Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Sven-Hendrik
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 18:14 Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net
wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-26 at 01:51 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov < Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks
the
packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they
don't care
about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package
their
EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless
packages
and it's time to cut those losses.
Hello,
Both Docker images work flawlessly since years (they are officially
supported).
I guess the question was more about EE vs CE. I recently noticed than well known opensource distro now use the CE.
Regards,
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
Let's not go further in this direction please. This thread is about
dropping/passing on maintenance of the gitlab packages. Hopefully some other TU can show these packages some love.
I think that the question of maintaining 'gitlab' package in [community] is relevant to our future plans. If we want to go with gitlab to manage our repos then I propose to use the Arch package instead of a Docker image. The advantage of using the Arch package is:
- we show that we trust our own packaging abilities
- we put ourselves into our user's shoes. Using 'gitlab' package at
our server will help us understand how other users deal with such systems. What are their pain points. Maybe it will force us to rethink how do we manage ruby releases or maybe we come up with better bundler integration or something else.
So we need to decide whether we want to use the Arch package or the docker image. If Arch package is the preferable option then it should stay in the repo.
The whole point of this is that we don't trust our gitlab packages. I wouldn't build our arch code hosting on those packages from what I've seen in the past. In fact, even if those packages found a maintainer again, I'd be opposed to actually using them ourselves in the short term.
I'm greatly behind the idea of dogfooding, but I understand the technical limitations and its practical scope. We may perhaps need to take on this beyond a packaging challenge but something we can pick up as a project...
Have we been able to talk with upstream and air our concerns? maybe we could start a more closely-knit collaboration with them and improve the state of their build toolchain?
Cheers, -Santiago
Hi
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:19 AM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 09:26 Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Sven-Hendrik
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 18:14 Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-26 at 01:51 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 01:43, Anatol Pomozov < Because Docker+EE works flawlessly and reliably while upstream breaks the packages we have every other release. Upstream _needs_ their Docker EE image to work as there's tons of money to be lost there but they don't care about our downstream packages. Also, I didn't see any way to package their EE at the time. I lost too much time maintaining these fruitless packages and it's time to cut those losses.
Hello,
Both Docker images work flawlessly since years (they are officially supported). I guess the question was more about EE vs CE. I recently noticed than well known opensource distro now use the CE.
Regards,
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
Let's not go further in this direction please. This thread is about dropping/passing on maintenance of the gitlab packages. Hopefully some other TU can show these packages some love.
I think that the question of maintaining 'gitlab' package in [community] is relevant to our future plans. If we want to go with gitlab to manage our repos then I propose to use the Arch package instead of a Docker image. The advantage of using the Arch package is:
- we show that we trust our own packaging abilities
- we put ourselves into our user's shoes. Using 'gitlab' package at
our server will help us understand how other users deal with such systems. What are their pain points. Maybe it will force us to rethink how do we manage ruby releases or maybe we come up with better bundler integration or something else.
So we need to decide whether we want to use the Arch package or the docker image. If Arch package is the preferable option then it should stay in the repo.
The whole point of this is that we don't trust our gitlab packages. I wouldn't build our arch code hosting on those packages from what I've seen in the past. In fact, even if those packages found a maintainer again, I'd be opposed to actually using them ourselves in the short term.
One example of why I don't trust them: sometimes gitlab tags a security release which would in theory need to be released quickly but then fails to build so it stays vulnerable for a few days until I can get the build fixed. This doesn't happen with the docker images.
I think the docker image is by far the preferable option for the time being.
Got it.
Sven-Hendrik, I am actually interested to learn more about gitlab product and its internals. I see that our package uses the old version of ruby. Updating the package to ruby-2.6/2.7 and fixing some of the bugs you mentioned will be a great opportunity for me to learn gitlab and help community at the same time.
But as we do not plan to use this package at out site then I do not want to invest too much time into it. What do you think if I take the ownership over the packages you mentioned then port it to newer ruby and later (around spring 2020) drop it to AUR?
Hi
Per discussion with Sven-Hendrik I am going to become maintainer for these packages.
Aaand the first batch of changes (switching gitlab to ruby 2.6) has landed [community-testing]. Please give it a try and send feedback if you see any issues.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 23:41 Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Per discussion with Sven-Hendrik I am going to become maintainer for these packages.
Aaand the first batch of changes (switching gitlab to ruby 2.6) has landed [community-testing]. Please give it a try and send feedback if you see any issues.
Thanks a lot! Good to see these going to a loving home. Don't forget to assign yourself all the bugs.
Hi,
Am 25.12.19 um 23:18 schrieb Anatol Pomozov via aur-general:
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
So is the recommendation for anyone currently using the packaged version to migrate to the Docker image?
Maybe this can be communicated accordingly, when no other maintainer can be found.
Best regards, Karol Babioch
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 23:30, Karol Babioch via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.12.19 um 23:18 schrieb Anatol Pomozov via aur-general:
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
So is the recommendation for anyone currently using the packaged version to migrate to the Docker image?
Maybe this can be communicated accordingly, when no other maintainer can be found.
Best regards, Karol Babioch
We don't really have any system for communication for things like that in place except for this mailing list. What other mechanism do you imagine?
Hi,
Am 25.12.19 um 23:31 schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
We don't really have any system for communication for things like that in place except for this mailing list. What other mechanism do you imagine?
Announcing this on main site as dedicated news entry is probably overkill? At least it would get some attention and potentially some new maintainer could be found this way ;-)?
Not sure how many people are using those packages, but this is seriously disruptive. Anyone running on this, would probably appreciate to be aware of the situation ...
Best regards, Karol Babioch
Em dezembro 25, 2019 19:36 Karol Babioch via aur-general escreveu:
Announcing this on main site as dedicated news entry is probably overkill? At least it would get some attention and potentially some new maintainer could be found this way ;-)?
Not sure how many people are using those packages, but this is seriously disruptive. Anyone running on this, would probably appreciate to be aware of the situation ...
I think Sven should have used the arch-dev-public mail list, but it does not change the fact the current packages are hard to maintain and if no other developer or trusted user wants to pick it up, it will be dropped.
Now, dropping does not mean deleting, they'll be moved to the AUR by Sven and subsequently orphaned, precisely to allow interested parties to pick it up and maintain it.
News items are for things that require user attention and/or manual intervention. The gitlab package will continue working after it gets dropped, just won't be updated anymore until someone wishes to maintain it on the AUR.
Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 23:47, Giancarlo Razzolini grazzolini@archlinux.org wrote:
Em dezembro 25, 2019 19:36 Karol Babioch via aur-general escreveu:
Announcing this on main site as dedicated news entry is probably overkill? At least it would get some attention and potentially some new maintainer could be found this way ;-)?
Not sure how many people are using those packages, but this is seriously disruptive. Anyone running on this, would probably appreciate to be aware of the situation ...
I think Sven should have used the arch-dev-public mail list, but it does not change the fact the current packages are hard to maintain and if no other developer or trusted user wants to pick it up, it will be dropped.
I thought aur-general for [community] and AUR and arch-dev-public for [extra] and [core] discussion? This way, non-TU users will get a chance to speak up here in case they want to aspire to be maintainers for the packages to be dropped for when they land in AUR.
On 12/25/19 5:31 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 23:30, Karol Babioch via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.12.19 um 23:18 schrieb Anatol Pomozov via aur-general:
I remember discussions about using gitlab to manage our (future) git repos. If we want to go this route then we need to keep gitlab in our repos.
So is the recommendation for anyone currently using the packaged version to migrate to the Docker image?
Maybe this can be communicated accordingly, when no other maintainer can be found.
Best regards, Karol Babioch
We don't really have any system for communication for things like that in place except for this mailing list. What other mechanism do you imagine?
I'd argue arch-dev-public moreso than aur-general...
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org