►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
If
you
go
to
your
a
group
which
is
outside
of
gitlab.gitlab.org
and
you
go
to
analytics,
ci
cd
under
shared
in
a
usage
you'll
see
that
you
see
a
chart
which
is
very
similar
to
the
charts
that
you
see
in
your
usage
quota.
Now,
where
is
usage
coda
it's
under
your
group
settings
or
your
user
namespace
settings
so
through
this
chart?
A
What
we
are
trying
to
show
is
not
your
ci
minutes
usage,
but
in
fact
this
is
a
very
raw
representation
of
how
many
minutes
you
have
exhausted
on
the
shared
runner
that
you're
using
and
this
is,
it
does
not
take
into
account
your
the
cost
factor.
That
is
applied
to
your
project,
so
I
would
give
an
example
here
that,
let's
say
if
you
have
created
a
public
project
after
july
2021,
that
means
you
had
a
cost
factor
of
0.008
applied
to
your.
A
Share
donor
usage
now
this
will
only
show
the
duration
that
hey
you
have
used
it
for
16
319
minutes.
However,
if
you
go
to
your
usage
quota,
what
it
would
do
is
it
would
multiply
this
number
16
319
by
0.008,
and
the
data
that
you
get
then
is
what
you
see
here
for
ci
minutes.
So
that's
the
difference.
This
is
a
very
rare
representation,
and
the
decision
for
keeping
this
under
analytics
was
to
not
to
confuse
our
users
and
still
give
them
visibility
into
their
share
donor
usage.
A
So
our
thought
was
that
if
you
place
it
very
close
to
the
usage
quota
details,
then
they
would
just
be
very
confused
that
hey.
Why
am
I
seeing
two
very
similar
information?
How
are
they
different
from
each
other
and
it
might
even
lead
to
some
sort
of
major
confusion,
but
as
we
are
moving
ahead
with
our
work
around
the
cminute
policies,
something
that
we
have
under
works
is
this,
which
is
to
harden
ci
limit
for
public
projects.
A
With
a
limit
of,
I
think,
400
minutes
and
now
what
we
want
to
do
is
we
want
to
bring
the
cost
factor
for
all
public
projects
which
are
not
public
forks
to
one.
That
means
what
you
consume
is
what
gets
built
for
what
you
get
bill
for
so
there.
Why
am
I
stating
this
information?
Is
there
will
be
a
time
when
this
will
represent
something
very
close
to
this
data?
A
After
having
some
recent
discussions,
our
new
conclusion
was
that
the
difference,
the
huge
difference
that
we
see
in
the
shed
in
a
use
agency
I
mean
its
consumption-
is
going
to
like
close
in
once
we
harden
the
limits,
so
there's
no
point
having
two
dedicated
pages
for
each.
In
fact,
we
can
just
maybe
just
impose
this
information
over
each
other
and
show
them
together
to
give
an
idea
about
run
or
use
it
in
general.
A
So
I
started
to
explore
more
and
one
approach
that
I
thought
might
work
here.
Until
we
have
a
good
parity
in
both
the
data
is,
maybe
we
can
use
tabs
for
the
graphs,
at
least
for
now,
so
we
can
show
ci
minutes
separately
and
shut
in
a
duration
separately,
and
when
we
show
one
at
a
time
we
would
not
have
to
present
both
on
a
scale
which
is
which
could
be
unrealistic
for
the
other.
So
we
can
just
like
change
tabs
and
look
at
the
other
graph.
A
What
it
looks
like
and
the
legend
would
also
change
accordingly
and
besides
that,
on
the
table,
we
don't
have
to
like
make
any
tabs
for
the
table
because
we
had
enough
space,
as
is
so.
If
you
go
to
the
usage
quota
for
groups,
I
have
it
open.
We
have
like
a
good
amount
of
space
in
the
table
here
and
we
can
totally
accommodate
the
shed
on
a
duration
in
the
existing
table.