Similarly to what was done somewhat recently for the Go SIG in #11795, I would like to ask for
https://gitlab.com/groups/fedora/sigs/risc-v/
to be created for the RISC-V SIG to host SIG-specific repositories.
Our primary use case is relocating the dist-git overlay that currently lives at on a third-party server: now that we have our own Koji instance on Fedora infrastructure, it makes sense to move the dist-git overlay "closer" too. More importantly, this would enable better collaboration via merge requests, which is something that we can't easily do currently.
Note that, while the current dist-git overlay appears very large at 1994 repositories, in reality most of those are obsolete and will simply be left behind. Our tracker indicates that we're going to need just shy of 160 repositories, and with the ongoing upstreaming effort that number is bound to only get smaller over time. The goal is, of course, to eventually merge all RISC-V specific changes back into Fedora and remove the need to have an overlay at all.
In terms of membership I think at least me, @rjones and @davidlt would have to be granted Owner role, with everyone else in the SIG getting Developer role.
Lets confirm that we can allow builds pulling from gitlab.com before we make this group. ;) Otherwise great!
@kevin I think it might be useful to have this area anyway, for non dist-git contents that still need riscv64 patches such as fedora-kiwi-descriptions but yes, it would be significantly less interesting if we can't use it for the dist-git overlay.
How can we validate that the approach could work? Do you want me to mirror some random dist-git repo to my own GitLab account? We still don't have builders attached to the RISC-V Koji instance...
I think, the problem here is firewall configuration, which is IP based. Most likely GitLab has multiple frontends for load balancing, or something like that.
Here are some details: https://docs.gitlab.com/user/gitlab_com/#ip-range
Metadata Update from @phsmoura: - Issue priority set to: Waiting on Assignee (was: Needs Review) - Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops
Log in to comment on this ticket.