@skarbek could you take a look at this when you have a moment? Thanks!

What does this MR do?

Increase zoekt replicas to 4.

We were seeing this error:

% k logs gitlab-gitlab-zoekt-0 -f -c zoekt-webserver
Begin parsing .tpl templates from /etc
Starting GitLab Zoekt in webserver mode
2026/03/12 18:48:33 INFO determined index directory base=/data/index actual=/data/index/zoekt_data
{"time":"2026-03-12T18:48:33.876460482Z","level":"INFO","msg":"JWT authentication enabled for webserver","secret_path":"/.gitlab_shell_secret"}
{"time":"2026-03-12T18:48:34.246194929Z","level":"INFO","msg":"[INFO] loading 100959 shard(s): 10001180_v16.00000.zoekt, 10017785_v16.00000.zoekt, 10021654_v16.00000.zoekt, 10027709_v16.00000.zoekt, 10042120_v16.00000.zoekt... 100954 more"}
{"time":"2026-03-12T18:48:35.594385773Z","level":"INFO","msg":"[ERROR] reloading: /data/index/zoekt_data/15661359_v16.00000.zoekt, err cannot allocate memory "}

Author Check-list

Please read the Contributing document and once you do, complete the following:

• Check if all of the following apply:
  • Assign to the correct reviewer per the contributing document
  • Apply the correct metadata per the contributing document
  • Link to related MRs for applying the changes on other environments
  • Link to related Chef changes
  • If necessary link to a Criticality 4 Change Request issue

Reviewer Check-list

• Check if all of the following apply:
  • Reviewed the diff jobs to confirm changes are as expected
  • No changes shown in the diffs not associated with this MR - This may require a rebase or further investigation

Applier Check-list

• Make sure there is no ongoing deployment for the affected envs before merging (see #announcements slack channel)

John Mason (0d97f5c5) at 12 Mar 18:57

John Mason (131fa06d) at 12 Mar 15:57

... and 1 more commit

John Mason (1352eafd) at 12 Mar 15:56

What does this MR do and why?

Fixes the gitlab:seed:group_seed rake task which has been broken for over a year.

The task crashes with NoMethodError: undefined method 'flat_map' for an instance of Project when attempting to seed issues via Quality::Seeders::Issues. This is caused by a Rails class reloading issue where the Project class gets reinitialized during execution, but existing project instances still reference the old class definition.

This MR removes the broken issue creation and epic/milestone assignment code from the group seeder. The separate gitlab:seed:issues task can be used independently if issue seeding is needed.

Closes #462762

How to set up and validate locally

Before (on master):

bundle exec rake "gitlab:seed:group_seed[3, root, default]"
# => NoMethodError: undefined method `flat_map' for an instance of Project

After (this branch):

bundle exec rake "gitlab:seed:group_seed[3, root, default]"
# => Done!

Verify that groups, subgroups, projects, and milestones are created successfully by navigating to the root user's groups page.

MR acceptance checklist

This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

• This MR does not add a migration.
• The change is tested locally and works as expected.
• This approach was agreed upon in the issue discussion by @smaglangit, @rutgerwessels, and @abdwdd.

Thanks @dgruzd, a proactive approach sounds great! 🤝

This MR contains the following updates:

MR created with the help of gitlab-org/frontend/renovate-gitlab-bot

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻️ Rebasing: Whenever MR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this MR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

• If you want to rebase/retry this MR, check this box

This MR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

Change LGTM! @Alexand can you do maintainer review here?

What does this MR do?

Update Helm version check in tool validation for bootstrap scripts to support Helm 4. v3 is supported until end of July 2026 per (also updated doc links) so leaving existing warning on 3+ intact.

Related issues

When running bootstrap script if using Helm 4 - validate_tools fails on Helm version check because it used --client which was removed in v4

 ./scripts/gke_bootstrap_script.sh up
Error: unknown flag: --client
Helm 3+ is required.

 helm version --short 
v4.1.1+g5caf004

Author checklist

For general guidance, please follow our Contributing guide.

Required

For anything in this list which will not be completed, please provide a reason in the MR discussion.

• Merge Request Title and Description are up to date, accurate, and descriptive.
• MR targeting the appropriate branch.
• MR has a green pipeline.
• Documentation created/updated.
• Tests added/updated, and test plan for scenarios not covered by automated tests. - N/a
• Equivalent MR/issue for omnibus-gitlab opened. - N/a

Reviewers checklist

• MR has a green pipeline on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/charts/gitlab.
• Consider downstream impact to the Operator, as per evaluating impact from changes to GitLab chart.

My brain is more inclined to prefer a kanban board visual, but I think whatever the case, if we move to a pull based approach it will be a definite improvement!

@dgruzd

Love this idea! I think the concept of pull-based reviews is great.

WDYT if we used tracking issues for reviewing/merging an MR? That way we can leverage labels for different review requirements and use an issue board. The issue board could have issues automatically created once an MR is created and have columns something like review::initial, review::maintainer. After review::maintainer, we could track a state for "all approvals but waiting for MWPS". When an MR is merged, the tracking issue is automatically closed.

I love slack. However, I'm worried that managing things might be clunky. Perhaps dogfooding something in GitLab would be better. WDYT? 🤔

@igorwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww when I run make generate, I get a tonnnnn of changes and the script ultimately dies with no clear exception. Is that expected?

Hey there @Modjo85. Changes LGTM. Looks like there are some conflicts though. Will go ahead and approve and leave it to you to assign a database maintainer when you are ready. 🤝

John Mason (23d8b006) at 11 Mar 23:17