[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Exploring forgejo as alternative to salsa ? (Was Re: Private code: to forge, or not to forge?)



On Thu, 22 May 2025 17:41, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> 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


Reply to: