From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B15D1382C5 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:14:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D70FE08E0; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:14:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15EF8E08C2 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id l21so26947528eji.4 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 01:14:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Wmt6UBb6cJ4mm9DMuaP9talw2N4iGyzGASK5pI5IHeo=; b=R9koiqOXzArJpVrrEYqw4P+Qot3lSU/sebHZ2krJ7nNknb8Uy6yImO6YoIecUZsPdd BSauJ5ufdbqlP2C6fGYSpVRmEhRvNUvBoKoX7batFzX3nyaV2jkdCvYH3e4f9ya5RCJT 56twv2hQre2SpF0Q3DCeOGyVGljs+irpPS7+GG81Qf1P/brkDGt/qetuCDKuKX6YsQy0 1tyYyzGrmFFJ0vo4YKAMw2kbZln5qO+F/m0bR6WGNF6H4kBKDDcgt/tH+dMpd/ZVofI/ Ne/JIaBqd27TAYZnrIGxPzUCkddO9K5e2I4K+kpZvf+B3vPUSIePYaWAU0XwpoKs03nv bEgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Wmt6UBb6cJ4mm9DMuaP9talw2N4iGyzGASK5pI5IHeo=; b=jzzsgxcxTpVgj2KxjkJq6wgvb0zjPw95VaLpnwcd5BDhLigY0JQilrkSKi8uOrrtRJ ciwGegWhCJUASPBJJ7lgJ+LCbzcjeSVxbPO5FGYDPEwBUIiujWp6PARHqTmpB1ZHtUpB rOZEEoPph4zYTAzdG83ux+cPQRVLliMk8DrOdppObWgpLD8YZT9/J3qrEPxdd0R+q1mj sXIpMsLdUOAEpYN8boCld16Cs5cykrzQpmh4RciSqAS/xjznT0fRa9kbuMUfDfzfvkKd zMMjM9HzYW4Z9sorbSfWLlTaYn69kLHzRUpibdXsHEKzmzDweiZ6WcAlBxS547+DLA8Z neTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GlvVslxgTmDJOnDNu+t7FTEW/uLqW5l8Y2EeXSftILB+z55Zq rHhUOdpGtaLS/vc5J1UrDTool34NGpwVkE4128sgkGBRpEY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhhv6kveAafl0kaNL8wk3W7F5e/25JpEaTZ79jOKUhu9Re700zifWr+uOgChfDML27gi1LBiD1UAAGfrW4QJ4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6c97:: with SMTP id s23mr3590972ejr.421.1590567284088; Wed, 27 May 2020 01:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14c8d4a89d6b419124f7a8c3aea90ae6c81b1705.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <14c8d4a89d6b419124f7a8c3aea90ae6c81b1705.camel@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 01:14:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Value of Continuous integration vs Code Review / Pull Requests To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5b37b05a69ccdca" X-Archives-Salt: 433e7cc6-517a-4dbe-889a-a23a7031018a X-Archives-Hash: cb9c191226acb0ca6c3774574ea191e4 --000000000000f5b37b05a69ccdca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 26, 2020, 23:08 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrot= e: > On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 20:24 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > The TL;DR is that a crack team of infra-folks[0] have been putting > together > > demos of CI services and things like gitlab / gitea / gerrit and so on. > > > > Some of these come in combined (e.g. gitlab offers repo hosting, code > > review / pull reqs, CI services, and deploy services.) Some of these ar= e > > piecemeal (e.g. gerrit has code review, zuul has CI) and gitea offers > > repo-hosting but CI is separate (e.g. drone.) > > > > On the infra-side, I think we are pretty happy with repo-hosting > (gitolite) > > and repo-serving (gitweb). We are missing a CI piece and a pull-request > > piece. Most of the users using PRs use either a gitlab or github mirror= . > > > > I think the value of CI is pretty obvious to me (and I see tons of use > > cases in Infra.) We could easily build CI into our current repository > > solution (e.g. gitolite.) However gitolite doesn't really support PRs i= n > a > > uniform way and so CI is mostly for submitted code; similar to the > existing > > ::gentoo repo CI offered by mgorny. > > > > If we build a code review solution (like gitea / gerrit) would people u= se > > it? Would you use it if you couldn't merge (because the code review > > solution can't gpg sign your commits or merges) so a tool like the > existing > > pram tool would be needed to merge? > > > > Does GitLab count? Gerrit is just PITA. I think we had some concerns > about Gitea, so I'd like to test it before deciding. GitLab OTOH works > just fine for a lot of projects, and seems the next best thing after > GitHub Gitlab does count (we deployed and tested an onprem version.) I think there are some major issues with it though. - Licensing. Gitlab-CE is available, gitlab-EE is not OSS nor OSI approved and many of the features we need are EE only and are not available in CE. - Complex: Gitlab is a giant piece of software with maybe 8-12 components (unicorn, postgres, redis, memcache, sidekiq, puma, workhouse, gitaly, grafana, sshd,nginx, prometheus ..the list goes on) - I think gitlab ships with more features than we will use (CD, docker registry, issues / bugs, wiki, analytics, snippets, milestones, repo hosting, repo browsing, ... Again the list goes on.) I don't play to migrate away from bugs.gentoo.org nor wiki.gentoo.org, nor gitolite. I think if we did; then gitlab would be a more compelling option because it is a one-stop-shop solution for those use cases. My understanding of gitea is that it works great for not-::gentoo, but ::gentoo and gitea don't work well and it would require work upstream to fix; other large repos seemed to work OK in gitea (based on our test deployment and conversations with gitea upstream.) Gerrit is widely used for large projects and I'm not worried for ::gentoo and we have deployed gerrit and it seems to work fine. Gerrit doesn't have CI (we would need to deploy something) and it uses gitweb for repository browsing (which we use today.) -A > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --000000000000f5b37b05a69ccdca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, May 26, 2020, 23:08 Micha=C5= =82 G=C3=B3rny <m= gorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On = Tue, 2020-05-26 at 20:24 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> The TL;DR is that a crack team of infra-folks[0] have been putting tog= ether
> demos of CI services and things like gitlab / gitea / gerrit and so on= .
>
> Some of these come in combined (e.g. gitlab offers repo hosting, code<= br> > review / pull reqs, CI services, and deploy services.) Some of these a= re
> piecemeal (e.g. gerrit has code review, zuul has CI) and gitea offers<= br> > repo-hosting but CI is separate (e.g. drone.)
>
> On the infra-side, I think we are pretty happy with repo-hosting (gito= lite)
> and repo-serving (gitweb). We are missing a CI piece and a pull-reques= t
> piece. Most of the users using PRs use either a gitlab or github mirro= r.
>
> I think the value of CI is pretty obvious to me (and I see tons of use=
> cases in Infra.) We could easily build CI into our current repository<= br> > solution (e.g. gitolite.) However gitolite doesn't really support = PRs in a
> uniform way and so CI is mostly for submitted code; similar to the exi= sting
> ::gentoo repo CI offered by mgorny.
>
> If we build a code review solution (like gitea / gerrit) would people = use
> it? Would you use it if you couldn't merge (because the code revie= w
> solution can't gpg sign your commits or merges) so a tool like the= existing
> pram tool would be needed to merge?
>

Does GitLab count?=C2=A0 Gerrit is just PITA.=C2=A0 I think we had some con= cerns
about Gitea, so I'd like to test it before deciding.=C2=A0 GitLab OTOH = works
just fine for a lot of projects, and seems the next best thing after
GitHub

Gitlab does count (we deployed and t= ested an onprem version.) I think there are some major issues with it thoug= h.
=C2=A0- Licensing. Gitlab-CE is available, gitlab-EE is not OS= S nor OSI approved and many of the features we need are EE only and are not= available in CE.
=C2=A0- Complex: Gitlab is a giant piece of sof= tware with maybe 8-12 components (unicorn, postgres, redis, memcache, sidek= iq, puma, workhouse, gitaly, grafana, sshd,nginx, prometheus ..the list goe= s on)
=C2=A0- I think gitlab ships with more features than we wil= l use (CD, docker registry, issues / bugs, wiki, analytics, snippets, miles= tones, repo hosting, repo browsing, ... Again the list goes on.) I don'= t play to migrate away from bugs.gentoo.= org nor wiki.gentoo.org, nor git= olite. I think if we did; then gitlab would be a more compelling option bec= ause it is a one-stop-shop solution for those use cases.

My understanding of gitea is that it works great for not-::gentoo, b= ut ::gentoo and gitea don't work well and it would require work upstrea= m to fix; other large repos seemed to work OK in gitea (based on our test d= eployment and conversations with gitea upstream.)

= Gerrit is widely used for large projects and I'm not worried for ::gent= oo and we have deployed gerrit and it seems to work fine. Gerrit doesn'= t have CI (we would need to deploy something) and it uses gitweb for reposi= tory browsing (which we use today.)

-A
= =C2=A0

--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--000000000000f5b37b05a69ccdca--