gitlab VS gitlab-foss

Since the relevant code appears to be in the "ee" directory <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/v16.11.0-ee/ee/l...> and is not present in the foss repo, I'm guessing the answer is no, at least for now. They do have a history of "releasing" features from EE back to CE but my suspicion is not for LLM stuff

(Side note: Issues are usually hash-prefixed like #1234 both on GitLab and GitHub. However, commit messages must not begin with a hash, they would be considered a comment and ignored. Therefore, GitHub has introduced the alternative prefix GH- and I've contributed a similar prefix GL- to GitLab a while ago.)

and its "oh, you want multi-arch, do you?" friend. While prosecuting this <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/339567> I learned that https://hub.docker.com/layers/multiarch/qemu-user-static/7.2... actually mutates the binfmt_misc in buildx's context in order to exec the static copy of qemu in it https://github.com/multiarch/qemu-user-static/blob/v7.2.0-1/...

and, that the buildx plugin itself has some qemu magick in it, which got addressed in a minor version bump but I couldn't track down the relevant GitHub issue this second (I've flushed it from my mind, only recalling that there were a lot of actors in that tire fire)

This is actually a follow-up refactor, the fix is here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/commit/abe79e4ec43798...

* Gitlab EE (enterprise edition) is closed, but Gitlab CE (community edition) is open source (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/)

* I didn't follow the Gitea drama too closely, but my understanding is that Forgejo was a fork born out of that situation

* I've heard the SourceHut guy is a controversial figure, so avoiding it because of that isn't unreasonable. I will just say that "spite forks" tend not to last very long

Gitlab uses an UrlBlocker class to prevent malicious users from exploiting SSRF via the webhook URL. This class validates the URL and blocks everything which is a local network, but before the 11.5.1 version, they didn't think about an IPv6 format, which maps to IPv4: [0:0:0:0:0:ffff:127.0.0.1]. Replacing the part of 127.0.0.1 to any IP address also worked, and this vulnerability made it possible to send requests to the internal network of a GitLab instance. You can read the issue report here: (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/53242 )[https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/53242]

I recommend Auto DevOps and hooking your project up to the Kubernetes cluster. Auto DevOps is a standard CI/CD template that GitLab uses by default when .gitlab-ci.yml is not present. It can automatically package up certain types of applications, including those with a Dockerfile in the root of the repo. If the project is hooked up to a Kubernetes cluster and all the right variables are present, it builds that docker image and then fills in a Helm chart template containing that image and deploys it to the cluster.

Thanks. This was also requested for the UI 7 years ago

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/12776

and then closed with the claim that this was implemented, when in fact, it was not.

Similar to fsync, these are designed to ensure data integrity, but in a test setup, they don't matter. You can read more about these in the Postgres doc on non-durability. and explore some benchmarks from Gitlab here. Interestingly, CircleCI's old Postgres images had these features disabled by default, but the newer ones don't seem to.

Most all of those things are possible with Argo Workflows or Tekton with very great effort. But a sustainable system with all the features built-in.

If you wish to clone a copy of GitLab without proprietary code, you can use the read-only mirror of GitLab located at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/. However, please do not submit any issues and/or merge requests to that project.

GitLab versions 10.7 and later, allow the HTTP(S) protocol for Git clone or fetch requests done by GitLab Runner from CI/CD jobs, even if you select Only SSH.

it sure does