Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Gitea hosted Gitea #1029

Open
19 of 20 tasks
lunny opened this issue Feb 23, 2017 · 99 comments
Open
19 of 20 tasks

Gitea hosted Gitea #1029

lunny opened this issue Feb 23, 2017 · 99 comments
Labels
topic/deployment type/proposal The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first

Comments

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Feb 23, 2017

For the first big stage, we would like Gitea's development could be based on a Gitea hosted and github will only a mirror. This will maybe completed in v1.x. So that this issue will list all the features needed to be implemented before v1.x. And of course please discuss them and change my post.

Migrating Progress Updated:

@lunny lunny added the type/proposal The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first label Feb 23, 2017
@lunny lunny added this to the 1.x.x milestone Feb 23, 2017
@Lourens-Rich
Copy link

Very good idea!

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Feb 27, 2017

1.2 in February, 1.3 in April, 1.4 in June, 1.5 in August? should be enough time to implement all that 😄

@zellyn
Copy link

zellyn commented Mar 10, 2017

If you haven't seen it, fantastic and insightful comment supporting your approach to self-hosting only when ready: https://lobste.rs/s/gokjbo/gitea_1_1_0_released/comments/dg9pwe#c_dg9pwe

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Apr 7, 2017

@lunny Now that I think about it (thanks @zellyn for that link 😂 ) Why do we need oauth-provider, complete webhook support, api-documentation, and a complete API for self-hosting?

OAuth Consumer is required (it's merged AFAIK) so people can login using github auth.
Drone only uses push hooks, so why would we need the other?

As for API, not sure why self-hosting requires that at all TBH :)

@strk
Copy link
Member

strk commented Apr 7, 2017

I agree about trimming that list. Earlier self-hosting will very likely help us setting priorities better :)

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented Apr 7, 2017

@bkcsoft maybe we can setup a hosted site and have a try.

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented Apr 7, 2017

@bkcsoft I updated the issue, do you mean that?

@ekozan
Copy link

ekozan commented Aug 31, 2017

-> OAuth provider (#27) is not closed

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Aug 31, 2017

@ekozan not closed, but scratched from the list of "things we need"

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Sep 14, 2017

Added "Repository Size Limits" since we don't have unlimited storage on the servers...

My proposal for limits:

  • 0 Orgs
  • 3 Repos
  • 1GB/repo

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented Sep 14, 2017

@bkcsoft Did you mean it will be a public service for anyone?

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Sep 14, 2017

Maybe, maybe not, but if it becomes a public service we can't have it unlimited ;)

@stevegt
Copy link
Contributor

stevegt commented May 5, 2018

I think dogfooding is important enough that repo size limits may not need to be in the critical path for self-hosting gitea. In the first few days after migrating to gitea, I've run across several feature omissions that made me think self-hosting will help focus effort on getting those things done. Gitea is already a fantastic, highly usable, high-performance tool -- it's a real shame you aren't using it yourselves. ;-)

Rather than depend on hard size limits, it might instead be helpful to think about how the self-hosted server is going to be administered, who's going to police bad behavior, and what tools they will want. For instance, contributor forks of the gitea project ought to be supported on gitea's own server. This exposes the risk that a user forks gitea, then pushes warez to their fork. Size limits might help prevent pushing large binaries, but might not help with a list of passwords or credit card numbers. A tool that might help in that case is something that detects alien files by diff line count or rolling hash.

A nice side-effect of having a diff-size tool available is that the code could be available as an option to run during pushes to flag legitimate commits that should have been broken up into smaller pieces anyway. (Related discussion for ways to do this: #3658 (comment).)

I'd bet there are a lot of other subtle things that will need to be addressed for public-facing servers. It might make sense to use a separate "public hosting" master issue or milestone to track these things.

@stevegt
Copy link
Contributor

stevegt commented May 5, 2018

Speaking of milestones, should this issue be added to 1.5.0?

@jonasfranz
Copy link
Member

@stevegt No, since I think that not all of the PRs will get merged / resolved at 1.5.0.

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented May 8, 2018

I removed Repository Size Limits (#3658) from the issue since it will not affect Gitea hosted gitea.

@mxmehl
Copy link

mxmehl commented May 9, 2018

I removed Repository Size Limits (#3658) from the issue since it will not affect Gitea hosted gitea.

Great! I'm positive that the sooner Gitea hosts itself, the faster will the whole project profit from real-life experiences, and gain trust and confidence :)

@justinclift
Copy link
Contributor

@lafriks mentions in another thread:

Self-hosted would probably require additional funding/sponsorship to pay for additional virtual machine

And @lunny asks above:

@bkcsoft Did you mean it will be a public service for anyone?

Would it be feasible to combine those thoughts into a "How about setting up an online Gitea service, where people pay for (say) private repos?".

If done ok, that should generate the funds to pay for itself + the public repos.

As a concept, it seems to be fairly well travelled ground. 😄

@drsect0r
Copy link
Contributor

drsect0r commented Jun 4, 2018

To promptly add to @justinclift idea; the timing might be right with the current news of Microsoft taking over GitHub.

@mxmehl
Copy link

mxmehl commented Jun 4, 2018

@lafriks mentions in another thread:

Self-hosted would probably require additional funding/sponsorship to pay for additional virtual machine

I'm confident that there will be funding from the community or sponsorship from organisations to make gitea hosting itself possible. Since Gitea is resource-friendly (yes, GitLab, I'm looking at you) this won't be a big deal.

@techknowlogick
Copy link
Member

@mxmehl so far there have been 5 individuals that have contributed since the opencollective was open last month: https://opencollective.com/gitea

@lafriks
Copy link
Member

lafriks commented Jun 4, 2018

@justinclift as Gitea is purely community for driven there is no way we could set up paid private repositories as that requires creating company, dealing with taxes, and have full time staff to deal with technical problems

@mxmehl
Copy link

mxmehl commented Jun 4, 2018

@mxmehl so far there have been 5 individuals that have contributed since the opencollective was open last month: https://opencollective.com/gitea

@techknowlogick Didn't know this page. Now it's 6 ;)

@justinclift
Copy link
Contributor

@lafriks Well.... there are Community projects around - for both software and non-software things - which seem to manage themselves ok, including financial matters, things they pay for, staff (where needed), and so on.

That being said, it does require a level of will to make it happen + keep it going. The people in any needed roles also need to be good custodians (trustworthy, reliable, clueful).

If there's no interest, then it won't go anywhere anyway. Ditto if no suitable "custodian" types can be agreed upon.

From the Open Collective link mentioned above, it looks like some initial seeds are in place. It demonstrates there are people around who are considered ok as custodians. 😄

@lathama
Copy link

lathama commented Sep 10, 2019

People, if you want more infrastructure spread around for every region then please vote with your wallet at https://opencollective.com/gitea

@guillep2k
Copy link
Member

@SuperSandro2000 Are you aware that Gitea is not a service but a product? You download the sources, compile Gitea in your servers and install it. No connection whatsoever required to Gitea's hosting.

@go-gitea go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 10, 2019
@techknowlogick
Copy link
Member

if they demand to cut their donation if you don't implement XY or do ZA or if they just go away some day.

There are no guaranties that the unknown unreputable donor will be there next month.

A couple of responses to this: We wouldn't host on an unreputable company, and the Gitea leads have placed our trust in this company. If they stop providing sponsorship, or stop being a company we have options available to us, and can move elsewhere.

the entire user base will suffer due to the difficulties between the US and China.

A large part of Gitea team is from China (but we also have maintainers in all other continents too), and if development team can't access code then the user base will suffer, which is why we need development team to be able to access code. We build Gitea so everyone can use it, even users who are banned from GitHub (after recent ban wave from GitHub a lot of those users started using Gitea).

As others have mentioned, there are mirrors of the codebase on other instances around the world, and thanks to git there is a ledger of all changes made to code so everyone can have visibility into all changes.

A note on transparency: I have locked this thread. I don't want to stop this conversation, however it should be moved to a different place as this github ticket is about what enhancements need to be done with software for self-hosting (rather than where we are hosting).

@lunny lunny modified the milestones: 1.10.0, 1.10.1 Nov 14, 2019
@techknowlogick techknowlogick modified the milestones: 1.10.1, 1.11.0 Nov 29, 2019
@techknowlogick techknowlogick modified the milestones: 1.11.0, 1.12.0 Jan 5, 2020
@lafriks lafriks modified the milestones: 1.12.0, 1.13.0 May 16, 2020
@lunny lunny modified the milestones: 1.13.0, 1.14.0 Sep 1, 2020
@zeripath zeripath modified the milestones: 1.14.0, 1.15.0 Mar 11, 2021
@zeripath zeripath modified the milestones: 1.15.0, 1.16.0 Jun 26, 2021
@lunny lunny modified the milestones: 1.16.0, 1.17.0 Nov 15, 2021
@techknowlogick techknowlogick modified the milestones: 1.17.0, 1.18.0 Jun 8, 2022
@lunny lunny modified the milestones: 1.18.0, 1.19.0 Oct 17, 2022
@lunny lunny modified the milestones: 1.19.0, 1.20.0 Jan 31, 2023
@techknowlogick
Copy link
Member

There haven't been many updates on this posted, but I just wanted to say it is being worked on. The alternative export API that Github provides is sadly not working for us, it always returns that it fails to export the data. My guess is that the amount of data we have is too much. If anyone has any contacts at Github who can help us out, please let me know :) My contact email is in my bio.

@delvh delvh removed this from the 1.20.0 milestone Jun 5, 2023
@jolheiser jolheiser unpinned this issue Dec 4, 2023
@jolheiser jolheiser pinned this issue Dec 4, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
topic/deployment type/proposal The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests