The Gitaly team is responsible for building and maintaining systems to ensure that the Git data storage tier of GitLab instances, and GitLab.com in particular, is reliable, secure and fast. For more information about Gitaly, see the README in the repository and the roadmap below.
Gitaly team consists of two subgroups, Gitaly:Cluster team and Gitaly:Git team, together referred to as Gitaly.
While GitLab is the primary consumer of the Gitaly project, Gitaly is a standalone product which can be used external to GitLab. As such, we strive to achieve a functional boundary around Gitaly. The goal of this is to ensure that the Gitaly project creates an interface to manage Git data, but does not make business decisions around how to manage the data.
For example, Gitaly can provide a robust and efficient set of APIs to move Git repositories between storage solutions, but it would be up to the calling application to decide when such moves should occur.
Processes fully independent of business inputs (such as repository maintenance) should be fully contained within Gitaly as they provide substantial value to anyone using the Gitaly project.
Please see the public product direction for Gitaly.
A more detailed internal roadmap and vision can be found in the internal handbook.
The following members of other functional teams are our stable counterparts:
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| Mark Wood | Senior Product Manager, Systems:Gitaly |
| Evan Read | Senior Technical Writer, Govern:Compliance, Manage:Import and Integrate, Systems:Distribution, Systems:Gitaly |
| Ameya Darshan | Security Engineer, Deploy:Environments, Systems:Gitaly, Systems:Geo, Delivery, Snippets |
| Costel Maxim | Senior Security Engineer, Application Security, Plan (Project Management, Product Planning, Certify), Create:Source Code, Growth, Fulfillment:Purchase, Fulfillment:Provision, Fulfillment:Utilization, Systems:Gitaly |
| Furhan Shabir | Senior Site Reliability Engineer, Systems:Gitaly |
| Gerardo Gutierrez | Senior Support Engineer, Systems:Gitaly |
| Igor Drozdov | Staff Backend Engineer, Create:Source Code, Systems:Gitaly API |
| John McDonnell | Senior Software Engineer in Test, Systems:Gitaly |
| Vasilii Iakliushin | Staff Backend Engineer, Create:Source Code, Systems:Gitaly API |
Gitaly team members do not carry pagers, but we live around the world and there's a good chance that someone is available during their working hours. There is no coverage for weekends; instead, we strive to empower incident responders to mitigate any circumstance.
These issues relate to ongoing production outages or similar. They interrupt our process used to [schedule work] and get attention as soon as possible. Please only interrupt us sparingly, in these cases:
Getting attention on an urgent, interrupting issue
@gl-gitaly (the whole team) on the issue.Please file an issue here. Post it on #g_gitaly for more immediate visibility.
A note on customer escalations and engagements
We are happy to help when a customer needs it! But please keep in mind that we are primarily a development team, not equipped for "field engineering".
Our engineers can help, preferably async, with:
Engineering Managers (@jcaigitlab & @andrashorvath) and Product Managers (@mjwood) are also happy to engage with customers if you need assistance clarifying roadmaps, product features and timelines, or to ensure the correct prioritization.
We are not a good fit however if you need:
This epic discusses possible development of this engagement model.
To get Gitaly team work on something, it's best to create an issue on the Gitaly issue tracker
and add the group::gitaly and workflow::problem validation labels,
along with any other appropriate labels. Then, feel free to tag the relevant
Product Manager and/or Engineering Manager as listed above.
For information requests and other quick one-offs, feel free to use #g_gitaly on Slack to get attention on the issue.
Infradev labelsThese are typically Corrective Actions or other followup items that have strict SLO tracking. They will be scheduled through either of the above paths, by EM and/or PM polling these dashboards.
Mission: Provide a durable, performant, and reliable Git storage layer for GitLab.
Responsibilities | In the product hierarchy
Mission: Develop Git in accordance with the goals of the community and GitLab, and integrate it into our products.
Responsibilities | In the product hierarchy
We generally follow the Product Development Flow to schedule and track our work.
Work is executed in small chunks (2-3 days of work), each tracked as an issue. This allows for natural "checkpoints" for safe context switching. Triaging and scheduling is separate from executing the current work. All incoming work is tracked and we are intentional about picking up new work.
Incoming work of all kind (both projects and ad-hoc interrupts) passes by EM and PM for triage. There may be some engineering consultation here about feasibility, fit with the product's strategy roadmap etc. Some will get scheduled, some goes to the backlog. If the effort is not deemed necessary or not believed to align with the roadmap, we will close the issue with commentary as to why it is not being pursued for future reference.
We aim to scope milestones such that we have a task list that is ambitious, but not overwhelming. We deliberatly leave some capacity for incoming incidents. We want to avoid the feeling of a never ending mountain of work to promote a healthy work / life balance. It is also important to stress that milestones are recommendations only and we work on a best effort basis.
For issues with a strict SLO, we follow the process defined below
We use the following workflow labels on the issues:
workflow::problem validation - A good spot to put features that we may / may not want to pursue. This is where product can do some user interviews, cost analysis, market fit, etc to decide if it's an opportunity we wish to pursue.workflow::solution validation - Use this label for features / issues where Engineering needs to investigate / propose a solution going forward, or break it down into smaller issues.workflow::planning breakdown - Issues ready to be scheduled in the next few milestones (unblocked or soon unblocked, with a known solution). Leaders of long-running (pre-approved) projects use this to communicate with PM.workflow::ready for development - Work that is scheduled for a milestone (either the current one, or one in the future).workflow::in dev - Actively being worked by the Engineering teamworkflow::in review - Work that is in reviewworkflow::verification - code is in production and pending verification by the DRI engineerworkflow::complete - changes are verified, issue can be closedIssues that we definitely want to prioritize for a release receive a Deliverable label and are moved to the top of the list.
These Deliverable issues help show our commitment to GitLab and our customers around working on these issues.
We work off the Gitaly ongoing work issue board, where the workflow::ready for development column is loosely sorted with higher priority items on top. Engineers ready to pick up more work do not necessarily need to assign the topmost item, but rather make an informed choice with affinity (area of expertise, relative urgency, interest etc). However, please take care not to work "siloed" for long periods, but rather use the opportunity of picking up new work to address infrastructure issues (eg flaky tests) or to help out and learn in another area.
Assign yourself to the item of choice and move it to workflow::in dev (and later as appropriate).
Note that P1/S1 work should be the only one to preempt this default flow. Do involve PM and EM if urgent work needs to be prioritized, but for P1/S1 burning fires a bias for action is of course preferred, just keep everyone informed.
If your work is blocked, use workflow::blocked and set a blocking issue for clarity. Then consider asking for help and/or helping to unblock another team member's blocked work before picking up something else.
Issues blocked for a long time should be removed from this process by removing the milestone and unassigning.
Everyone can file new issues as more work is discovered, and feed them into this process. To do so, file an issue, tag EM and PM, and assign workflow::planning breakdown without a milestone. Please explain both what needs to be done and why (ie the impact and urgency), and make it clear whether the work is ready to be picked up. (This is also how project DRIs add the next steps in their projects to the workflow.)
A weekly call is held between the product manager and engineering managers (of both Cluster and Git teams). Everyone is welcome to join and these calls are used to discuss any roadblocks, concerns, status updates, deliverables, or other thoughts that impact the group.
Because the Git project is an upstream project, we must use a different workflow.
The Git project has a different release schedule where a new release is published roughly every three months. The schedule can be seen in the Git project's calendar. Furthermore, it is expected that most topics will take significantly longer both to develop and to be merged upstream. As a consequence, our usual milestones are not a good mechanism to properly track the target GitLab version in the context of upstream issues.
Instead, we use labels like git-milestone::v2.42 to annotate our target Git version for open issues as well as the
actual version something has landed in for completed issues. These milestone labels are applied in addition to our
normal milestones.
This means that we assign milestones as a timeframe to schedule the implementation of the work by the Gitaly team members, but this does not correspond to the timeframe when the work will be released by the Git project. Their meaning is reduced to a planning tool such that Git issues continue to show up on usual issue boards and are readily discoverable. Consequentially, our usual way of picking up new work applies to Git issues, as well.
When working with the upstream Git Project, we still use a simple workflow where the developer implements the issue in a topic branch, creates a merge request, and assigns reviewers as usual, where issues and merge requests should be created in our mirror of the Git project. However, because the changes must undergo upstream review, the workflow diverges from our normal workflow
The meaning of the merge requests thus gets reduced to be purely informational.
Developers are encouraged to skip the optional internal review and instead send their patches to the mailing list directly. In that case, they should add a comment to the merge request that links to the mailing list thread on https://public-inbox.org/git/. The review should then happen on the mailing list directly.
Encouraging developers to send patches to the mailing list directly has multiple benefits:
The optional internal review is specifically with new internal contributors in mind. It should help to lower the bar for entry and reduce the level of discomfort that wider exposure to the Git community may bring with it. In the same spirit, reviewers may post review comments internally first before sending them to the Git mailing list. Ultimately, the goal should be that we mentor these new contributors internally such that they eventually start to post to the Git mailing list directly.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of exceptions where we prefer internal reviews:
In some contexts it may be necessary to collaborate on long-running topics when it is infeasible to land changes in a single release. Our usual iterative development approach does not always work well within the Git project. Most importantly, for an open source project the assumption needs to be that contributors may go away in the middle of their endeavour, leaving behind dangling pieces that might have complicated some of our architecture without actually reaping the intended benefits. In contrast to company-led projects, the Git project has no way of ensuring that these would eventually get finished.
For topics that span over multiple releases we are forced to use long-running feature branches until the topic becomes
upstreamable. The workflow here is thus different to normal upstream work and happens on a separate topic branch that
the developer creates from the current upstream master branch. From here on, the development of the topic happens
internally and follows our usual merge request workflow including internal reviews, where each of the merge requests
targets the topic branch.
One problem in this context is that the topic branch will eventually start to become outdated when the upstream master
branch progresses. While it would be possible to regularly merge from master into the topic branch, the end result
would not be in an upstreamable state. On the other hand, rebasing the topic branch on top of master would require
other contributors to adapt to the resulting forced update.
Instead, we use a combination of rebases and merges to update the topic branch with upstream's master branch:
master branch, discarding all changes. The resulting tree is the same tree
as the tree of master.While complicated, this workflow provides a bunch of benefits:
This workflow is similar to what Git for Windows uses and can be implemented via its shears.sh script:
# Update origin, pulling in new changes for origin/master.
$ git fetch origin
# Switch to the topic branch.
$ git switch topic
# Find the current root of the topic branch. This could either be the last fake-merge:
$ base=$(git rev-parse ':/Start the merging-rebase')
# Or it could be the merge-base of origin/master and your topic branch:
$ base=$(git merge-base origin/master topic)
# Rebase the topic branch onto origin/master.
$ ./shears.sh --merging --onto origin/master $base
OKR planning is done before every quarter for the next 3 milestones, with input from everyone. At that time, we must already have a good idea of the work that needs to be done.
The process is as follows:
EM+PM (with input from engineers and stakeholders): decide the scope we'll be working on.
EM: File Objectives and Key Results here and tie them to the actual work. We use these for reporting/communication of what we want to work on, project goals for the quarter, and its progress. Where possible, align with the larger organization's objectives.
PM: Once the scope of the quarter is clear, take the list of issues and assign one of the three milestones, along with workflow::planning breakdown (for large issues in need of breakdown) or workflow::ready for development.
workflow::planning breakdown items and file smaller issues if needed, adding them to the same 3 milestones as reasonable. Raise exceptions as needed.Issues with Infradev label are typically Corrective Actions or other followup items that have strict
SLO tracking. They will be scheduled through either of the above paths, by EM
and/or PM polling these dashboards:
Infradev issue details Past due Infradev issues
EM+PM: Poll the dashboards at least weekly. Triage and schedule these issues so that SLOs can be met. If needed, move the issue to the Gitaly tracker, or file a proxy issue there so that it shows up on work boards, and mark it as blocking. Drag issues to the top of the workflowready for development column.
EM+PM: If the issue is blocked or depends on ongoing work, add a Milestone that fits the SLO and the pending work (so that we don't forget it). Ensure that blocking work gets scheduled before.
Engineers: please prioritize picking up this work, and post frequent (at most weekly, even if no changes) updates in the original issue. Mark any blocking issues as such.
To have a constant communication flow about planned changes, updates and maybe breaking changes we have the #g_gitaly Slack channel. In the channel we will provide updates for all teams using the service but also ask for assistance to provide feedback and insights about planned changes or improvements.
To support this pro-active communication additionally there is also an individual counterpart on the consumer side to help with research in the codebases and coordination with all the teams consuming Gitaly. The DRI on Consumer side is Igor Drozdov.
The Gitaly consumers are:
Gitaly offers many customer facing features. As such, all deprecations to customer facing features will follow the standard GitLab feature deprecations guidance and announced within the deprecations documentation page.
Gitaly also offers many non-customer facing features, which are used by GitLab and other customers who directly interface with Gitaly. These Gitaly level deprecations will not be announced using the above methods as they are not designed for GitLab end users to interface with directly. Some examples of these non-customer facing features are storage level APIs, which should never be called by GitLab users.
At the beginning of each release, the Gitaly EM will create a retrospective issue to collect discussion items during the release. The first weekly Gitaly meeting after the 18th that issue will be used to discuss what was brought up.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
(Sisense↗) Slow tests are impacting the GitLab pipeline duration.
To complete team-specific onboarding, please file an issue here.
Maintainer rights are revoked, and to remove the developer from the list of
authorized approvers, remove them from the gl-gitaly GitLab.com group.