Hi Andreas,
On 6/2/26 9:52 AM, Andreas Enge wrote:
Hello Gusted,
thanks for coming back to us! I understand that Guix poses a lot of
strain on the Codeberg infrastructure and that we need to work together
to find solutions.
Am Sun, May 31, 2026 at 12:02:12AM +0200 schrieb Gusted:
I would like to raise awareness to Codeberg's recent change in quotas groups
[0]. This itself has no effect to Guix, but this did result in that users
that registered since two days ago are no longer able to fork
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix as this is more than 750 MiB of storage and
forks are simply not de-duplicated [1].
I do not quite understand what is meant by [1], which speaks of private
repositories and attached quotas. Guix is obviously public; are publicly
visible forks of a GPL project not also public - in this case I do not
see how [1] would apply - or do they count as private? Do they count
towards a putative Guix quota, or towards the person's quota who made the
fork?
I think you mean the reference in [0]? Sorry, let me clarify that. All
users that were registered on May 28 that had at least one public
repository is still in the quota group that grants 'Unlimited'
resources. Those who didn't have a public repository or were registered
after May 28 are now in a quota group that grant 750 MiB of repository
storage. That means they can't fork Guix as it's more of 750 MiB (maybe
forking does work but then any new pushes to this repository is then
blocked as part of quota enforcement).
Actually I have already heard complaints by an (unsuccessful) new
contributor that they were unable to fork, which sheds a bad light on
Guix and on Codeberg as having unreliable or not working infrastructure.
We understand and also find it unfortunate this issue persisted for many
weeks, this issue was not specific to Guix. We fixed this a few week ago
and forking large repositories should be possible again.
Personally I do not think that this is what we would like to see. I have
nothing against advertising Agit if it makes things easier for Codeberg,
but we should not force it on people.
I suppose that there already is or could be a policy to delete forks or
even accounts that have not been touched in a certain amount of time,
say a year?
I also mentioned this in another thread, we will still allow people to
fork Guix (does mean for new users they need to ask for quota raise).
And yes there's a policy to delete unused forks, problem is this has to
be manually reviewed to verify no unique contributions have been done to
the repository and if there are such contributions that they have been
upstreamed via a pull request, this is non-trivial to automate and as
such we're only doing it in extreme cases.
The move to Codeberg was motivated by a will to "modernise" and to "do
things as other projects do" and "what people are used to" (read:
Github), to make it easier for new contributors to take part.
This means we have to provide the usual workflow of forking and creating
pull requests from forks; if we want unusual or arcane approaches, that
is where we came from ;-)
We don't want to make Codeberg less modern, in fact we hope to get AGit
to be part of the modern workflow as removes the needs for the whole
forking concept for most contributions. That in turn means for us less
"wasted" storage to forks.
We could also ask ourselves in Guix the question whether we should host
our own Forgejo instance; but given our lack of sysadmin power, I do not
think that this would be a reasonable solution.
The "problem" with self-hosting Forgejo for a large project, any
instance will run into this where forks of people consumes on-disk
storage once you introduce `git gc` (which is absolutely necessary for
guix).
Andreas
Kind Regards
Gusted
Codeberg e.V.
--
https://codeberg.org
Codeberg e.V. – Arminiusstraße 2-4 – 10551 Berlin – Germany
Registered at registration court Amtsgericht Charlottenburg VR36929.
