|
Unknown opened 1 year ago
|
||||
|
This instance (code.onedev.io) just serves this purpose. Besides hosting OneDev itself, it allows one to play with OneDev, check the demo and tutorial projects. If someone wants to set up OneDev cloud service, that is very welcome. But using EE version still need a license as server resource is not something I want urgently... |
||||
|
|
@robin However, if people start using code.onedev.io for their own projects, you are going to end up paying a lot of money to be able to keep OneDev running, this is an issue GitLab ran into, as their codebase grew their server requirements grew, then thousands of people started using them and it meant they could no longer handle the load. Having a community of providers for public OneDev instances would be beneficial in the long run as it allows users to pick a instance close to home (say if one is hosted in the US and then one in Germany for example) and it also allows the load to be distributed across the different instances. There is always the option of hosting though, which is the main attraction of OneDev and the reason I am packaging OneDev for the aur in issue #1041 |
||||
|
|
I will put a notice that code.onedev.io is only a playground. It is not a place seriously hosting people's projects. This is very different from GitLab cloud service. I certainly welcome public OneDev instances hosting third party projects seriously, and can even refer to them somewhere in OneDev documentation. Just that EE version still requires license. |
||||
|
|
Well, As a strong believer in Open Source, I am only interesting in providing the open source features if I do host a community instance of OneDev. I have the resources and storage to spare so I do not see why I could not spin up an LXC container on my server and see how it goes. Before I can do that though, I need to package OneDev for the AUR and provide the documentation on using the package from the AUR on the ArchWiki, which is going to take a bit of time but hopefully it will be work it in the end! |
||||
|
|
That will be cool! OneDev can certainly be packaged in the pure open source way you like. |
||||
|
|
@robin A suggestion from the Arch community is to move from JSW to YAJSW (https://yajsw.sourceforge.io/) |
||||
|
|
Functionality of yajsw is very limited compared to jsw. |
||||
|
|
According to their wiki they have more functionality xD
I haven't used either of them so I can't comment on this, I was only relaying a suggestion :) |
||||
|
|
My last check (6 years ago), it does not even support windows 64bit. The situation might be better now. I checked yajsw source code, and the last update time is four years ago: https://github.com/yajsw/yajsw OS is evolving quickly, and service install script may often get compatibility problem. I reported several incompability issues to JSW and they are responding very quickly. I do not want to waste time exploring other alternatives if current solution works fine. |
||||
|
|
That being said, I am not a hard-core open source developer, and can accept proprietary components, especially when it is kind enough to allow free usage. This is something similar when IntelliJ entities free usage for open source projects. |
||||
|
|
Hm well, the Arch Linux community is hard-core, thus it makes sense they would make suggestions like this :P |
||||
|
|
Robin Shen changed state to 'Closed' 1 year ago
|
||||
|
|
So as for the public instances, I am going to trial it on my server: I doubt anyone will bother to use it, but lets see how it goes. A few months ago when I was in a discussion with OneDev they didn't like how there was no public instances. I am currently working on other wiki related information, but I guess I can make a PR to add a community instances section as well :) |
||||
|
|
@polarian I can add link to your public OneDev instance if you are serious on hosting user projects for production. If for testing purpose, users can simply use this instance. |
||||
|
|
@robin I am serious about it, it can be used for production hosting and it is hosted on the same server as my gitea (https://git.polarian.dev) thus it will be up as close to 24/7 as possible as the server is core infrastructure for my development and communication. I am not too worried about it being flooded right now, I doubt many people will consider it, but yes it is there for production and (I think) CI/CD is working on it (I did a brief test to see if the executor was working) |
||||
|
|
Also if I was not serious I wouldn't have spent about 3 hours writing up documentation on community instances: https://code.onedev.io/onedev/docs/~pulls/5 But this is not just for my benefit, hopefully others might get the passion to give over some resources to the OneDev community and help it build (maybe a company which has a lot stronger of an infrastructure!?!?!?), who knows. But for now, yes I am serious about hosting it, I have the resources, and unused resources is wasted resources. |
||||
|
|
That is great. Just want to confirm this is not a instance for testing purpose. Kudos to your job! |
||||
|
|
Yeah no problem. I already had the infrastructure there, only had to provision the resources :) |
| Type |
Question
|
| Priority |
Minor
|
| Assignee |
Hello,
I know this is not a goal of OneDev to provide cloud hosting like GitLab does, however some people might want to test out, or might not have the resources in order to host their own OneDev instance.
Other self hosted, open source git solutions, such as gitea, have hosting such as https://codeberg.org (which has modified the source code to their liking however) which provides cloud hosting support.
What I advice is doing neither of these but somewhere in between. I suggest adding a page in the wiki or on the README of the project with a list of open transparent OneDev instances which allow public accounts to be created. I myself might be interested in giving up some server resources to provide a public OneDev instance so that people can use OneDev without having to set it up themselves.
The issue with this however, is that the instances listed must be transparent on how they use data, and (preferably) not use analytics such as google analytics to track people who just want to be able to find a decent Github alternative.
GitLab for years has been a "transparent" drop in replacement for github, the thing is it is not. GitLab has done some shady things themselves and store vast amounts of user data.
It would be cool to have a community of instances which people can pick between, unlike GitLab it will not be centralised on a single server, and people will not be forced to pay for features, they will get all the features OneDev support free of charge by those who are willing to donate server resources.
For this however, it might be interesting to have a "OneDev" transfer feature to allow you to transfer repositories quickly and effortlessly across instances, and also have some sort of "backup OneDev" where two instances could exchange repositories (like mirrors) to provide data integrity.
Of course this is only a suggestion, and does have its own downsides, I would be interested to know what other members of the OneDev community think about this?