reproduce CI runner #356
Labels
No labels
0 points
0.5 points
1 point
13 points
2 points
21 points
3 points
34 points
5 points
55 points
8 points
api service
blocked
component: fediversity panel
component: nixops4
documentation
estimation high: >3d
estimation low: <2h
estimation mid: <8h
infinite points
productisation
project-management
question
role: application developer
role: application operator
role: hosting provider
role: maintainer
security
technical debt
testing
type unclear
type: bug
type: deliverable
type: key result
type: objective
type: task
type: user story
user experience
No milestone
No project
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Blocks
#336 reproducible project infrastructure
fediversity/fediversity
#405 try out existing nix container made for gitea actions
fediversity/fediversity
Reference: fediversity/fediversity#356
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
As a Fediversity developer,
I want to be able to reproduce the Forgejo CI runner,
so that I may feel in control of the infrastructure needed to work on the project.
implementation notes
forgejo-ci.procolix.com/45.142.234.216/192.168.201.65, accessible byssh 192.168.201.65 -l procolix -i ~/.ssh/procolix-id_rsanix-shell --run 'nixops4 apply forgejo-ci'kiara referenced this issue2025-06-06 11:19:22 +02:00
forgejo-cimachine to our infrastructure #389nix.nixPathto allow imperatively installing packages #399nix.nixPathto allow imperatively installing packagesnix.nixPathto allow imperatively installing packagesi managed to deploy on the rebase by vpn now - tho i'm not sure that might work also for @Niols (whereas the present set-up here does not work for me), hm.
I personally connect to it with
where the proxy is a machine outside Procolix's network but whose IP is allowed to go through.
whoops, i should probably have placed that comment at #389 instead.
@Niols: while i may need the other branch myself, i believe #389 should then be ready for your review.