17:04:09 #startmeeting gitlab status meeting, 8 april 2020 17:04:09 Meeting started Wed Apr 8 17:04:09 2020 UTC. The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:04:09 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:04:10 pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/gitlab-migration-problems 17:04:22 anybody else for the gitlab meeting? 17:04:46 i've added some *comments* on top of the list items from my friday experiments 17:05:16 i gave up on the [[Image(filename, style)]] one, so images are only possible as attachments for now i think 17:05:26 i could spend more time on it, but i am not sure it is worth getting a perfect score here 17:06:20 yes, we can have a list of things that we are not doing now 17:06:29 and see if anybody have a big objection on those 17:07:27 yes. the markdown conversion problems are easy it seems, which is good. on friday my goal was to do all the metadata items we have 17:07:41 like point conversion and the issue with spaces vs comma in keywords 17:07:50 and i found even a semi-colon somewhere on friday 17:08:19 ok 17:09:27 * ahf is just going over his notes from friday to see if he missed anything 17:09:28 hi 17:09:38 sorry, I spaced out working on websites :) 17:09:47 so the list that is in the pad marked as 'no possible' are things we are leaving behind 17:10:22 gaba: it is the things that i think wont be possible to do in GL, yeah 17:10:26 pili: no worries 17:10:50 ok, the bottom items are all metadata stuff, that is fine 17:10:50 ahf: are you ok if I reorganize the list in the pad to have the no possible things in one place? 17:11:02 gaba: yes! feel free to reorder things 17:11:19 i think you have a better sense of order than i do 17:12:12 ok 17:12:55 i added some *solved* *impossible*, etc. on top of some of the todo items 17:13:06 those i would like to keep around (but maybe in a different place) so i can group things 17:14:58 not sure what is the stuff from line 24 to line 53 17:15:38 looking 17:16:51 the things to look for and things not to look for can be removed. i'm gonna do that 17:16:56 that was when the pad was a survey 17:17:08 ok 17:17:32 pili: can you take a look at the things that we are not going to do and see if there is anything there you care about? 17:17:41 let me see... 17:17:46 yep 17:19:01 "ISSUES NOT RESOLVED" right? 17:19:02 I can't see anything there that I care strongly about :) 17:19:16 oki, a lot of it cosmetic things, fortunately 17:19:27 yup 17:19:46 are we going to keep a static (archived?) copy of trac? 17:19:56 or is it just going to disappear at some point? 17:20:09 wait, we're having a gitlab meeting now? 17:20:12 totally missed that 17:20:12 e.g because we need to decommission the machines that run trac currently 17:20:14 hi :) 17:20:22 perfect timing anarcat ;) 17:20:22 hi :) 17:20:29 pili: that part i don't know the answer to, but i think anarcat might have an opinion about that 17:20:34 yes 17:20:36 i want to kill trac 17:20:38 i think he did some archiving before of tpo stuff 17:20:44 anarcat just exactly gets in in the controversial topic :P 17:20:54 o/ 17:21:01 * pili wonders which of the words she mentioned anarcat has highlights for ;) 17:21:02 * anarcat puts on his BOFH hat 17:21:10 hehe 17:21:14 "archive trac" pili 17:21:18 :D 17:21:20 no highlight, i was just clearing my activity list in irssi :) 17:21:30 yeah yeah... ;) 17:21:33 this is the plan for trac https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31690 17:21:54 ok, I will read that, thank you :) 17:22:09 nice 17:22:09 we have a crawl of trac up until #30856 into the internet archive, that's about ~3-4k tickets missing 17:22:16 we could do another run of this 17:22:18 sweet 17:22:36 the archive is on the internet achive then, so browsing it will be via their site? 17:22:46 ahf: there are a few proposals 17:22:59 my trac is loading 17:23:02 i would love to leave trac archived somewhere... 17:23:31 the tickets mentions 4 approaches: "1. the golden redirect", "2. readonly trac", "3. fossilization", and "4. destruction" 17:23:45 (2) and (3) are the same, but (3) allows us to turn off trac, right? 17:23:50 one option i have *not* put there is option "0. keep trac around forever" which i strongly object to 17:23:55 like for the user it is the same 17:24:00 fossilization is converting to static only i guess 17:24:03 ahf: effectively yes 17:24:11 ack 17:24:16 i would also object strongly to option 2 17:24:26 yes, i like 4 :) 17:24:29 i mean 3 17:24:41 well option 4 is a little intense, we should probably do at least 1 17:24:42 i like 3 for a period and then maybe 4 17:24:52 but 4 is not a priority for me :-S 17:24:56 heh 17:24:56 yes, but first we need to get to the other side that is this migration 17:25:06 next steps 17:25:06 well 17:25:17 i would really hate to be the sucker stuck with maintaining trac at the end of this :p 17:25:35 yes, that is why we need to get to the other side of a migration... 17:26:00 ahf: is there any other test that needs to be done or we are ready to have a date for migration if we agree on a plan? 17:26:07 but it also means that the migration needs to do certain things for us to keep our options open for trac 17:26:12 e.g. we need to migrate the wiki somehow 17:26:24 yes, ahf has been working on that 17:26:26 gaba: tests? 17:26:34 gaba: awesome, thanks 17:26:34 anarcat: https://pad.riseup.net/p/gitlab-migration-problems 17:26:41 we need to go over the list of items when all itmes are marked as done, and see if it's true 17:26:42 yeah, i still need to catchup with my tabs :) 17:26:46 or if i have missed something there 17:26:53 ahf: you have been writing the migration script and running it 17:27:02 anarcat: gitlab projects have wikis so project maintainers should migrate the content if we can't do it automatically (I guess...) 17:27:03 without having followed the plan too closely :S 17:27:10 gaba: ah, yep 17:27:24 gaba: i think the list there is we need to carefully go over the list and see if something is actually not fixed 17:27:30 ok 17:27:40 you did a last migration, where is the link? 17:27:42 and i think we hsould do that once the metadata changes are in, because they are where we have information loss 17:27:45 pili: there is "only one wiki" in trac, so my hope is that we migrate at least that into the legacy project 17:27:54 ah, ok 17:28:11 yes, we need to migrate everything into legacy project and then from there to the last place in gitlab 17:28:24 then of course, like the legacy project issues, teams can move stuff out of there, either by forking the wiki (it's a git repo!) or by copying content by hand 17:28:48 last run i have is on https://gitlab.torproject.org/ahf-admin/legacy-20200320 - i plan to start a run with the metadata changes over the upcoming weekend so we can walk over those 17:29:17 ahf: so we should wait for your next run then? 17:29:24 anyways, sorry if i hijacked your meeting :) 17:29:26 i think so, yes. right now the things are only cosmetic 17:29:29 anarcat: you did not! 17:29:29 i hope i answered the question 17:29:56 so for what I understand next steps would be: 17:29:59 0. ahf does one more run of the migration into a legacy test project. 17:29:59 1. check that all issues marked as resolved are fine in the legacy test project. 17:30:02 2. check with tor-project@ that everybody is ok with stuff that is not resolved. 17:30:05 3. review plan https://nc.torproject.net/s/3MpFApQ7cwfrPZE 17:30:07 4. migrate 17:30:10 5. decide on trac's next life https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31690 17:30:26 yes, (1) have an "if there are issue, goto (0) and repeat 17:30:29 " 17:30:50 gaba: 3 and 5 seem backwards to me, i feel they should be before 1 :) 17:31:01 ie. make sure our plan is sound, and include trac in there 17:31:07 yes 17:31:15 that would also expand point 4 considerably, i think :) 17:31:18 ok. I'm ok to whatever is decided on trac's after life 17:31:42 ahf: yes, 0-1 will repeat until we are fine 17:31:55 yes 17:31:57 for 1 I would guess is you and me and maybe pili looking at it? 17:32:07 the more eyes the better to be honest 17:32:16 once we are happy i would really like to ask dcf to look too 17:32:22 and that could be next week then. You tell us when you have it ready 17:32:23 ok 17:32:24 he has spotted things i would have missed many times 17:32:27 1.b) if all is good, go to 2; 1.c) goto 0 17:32:34 this feels like BASIC ;) 17:32:36 :) 17:32:39 gaba: yep, if i start a sync friday evening my time it should have a lot of tickets like monday evening 17:32:49 sounds good 17:33:00 can we review 3 in this meeting to be sure we are ok? 17:33:09 should we start having a weekly status in here at this time each week ideally again? 17:33:13 yep 17:33:13 gaba: i'm game 17:33:16 i just lost the game 17:33:50 weekly status seems good to me 17:34:34 ok 17:34:43 ool 17:34:46 cool* 17:35:55 the nc file has at the bottom something that says process 17:36:08 I went through the file and I updated it based on conversations we had before 17:36:47 cool 17:37:30 so something that's missing in that process is the redirect 17:37:38 i mean 17:37:52 like when we put trac readonly 17:37:58 and the irc bot is also missing 17:38:00 because we will necessarily have to do that at some point 17:38:01 yeah 17:38:50 anarcat, ahf: can you add those? 17:39:38 added to the list on the pad now 17:39:39 not sure what's going on with that list numbering 17:39:41 if we are migrating project by project from trac we will have to archive the project in trac right after we do the migration into legacy 17:40:34 yeah, that makes sense 17:40:52 i think the redirect is easier for http than the irc bot is. because of the legacy project 17:40:53 yeah 17:41:30 the bot only needs to be extended to support foo/bar#N to talk to gitlab 17:41:47 with #N being a special case with tpo/legacy#N being implicit 17:41:49 "only" 17:41:53 not sure where that fits in the doc 17:42:41 is this something after we do the migration? im guessing the bot will be down a little bit 17:42:52 we should do it before, IMHO 17:42:58 because we can 17:43:04 the bot is really useful 17:43:06 we can live without the bot a little while, but i think we should do it before if possible. i think the bot is a supybot? 17:43:30 ok 17:43:41 ahf: i have *no* idea - maybe? 17:43:53 one problem is it's a multi-stakeholder bot 17:44:00 iirc, it's also used by the debian project? 17:44:01 who could extend the bot? 17:44:08 i am not sure 17:44:21 we're talking about zwiebelbot right? 17:44:26 asked weasel now 17:44:27 yeah 17:44:27 yes 17:44:39 13:45:23 [OFTC] -!- ircname : zwiebelbot run by weasel (@debian.org) 17:44:59 13:46:02 The current (running) version of this Limnoria is 2019.02.23, running on Python 3.7.3 (default, Dec 20 2019, 18:57:59) [GCC 8.3.0]. The newest versions available 17:45:15 ok, we shoudl check with weasel to see if he can do this 17:45:35 oh 17:45:36 ahf: it is supybot, but the question really is more (1) where is it running and (2) who has access to that and (3) who wants to hack it 17:45:54 weasel once showed me how it was doing the bug sthing and it looked very easy 17:46:02 like it can do debian#123 now 17:46:05 i think 17:46:08 maybe not 17:46:18 looks like not 17:46:18 it can 17:46:23 i suspect it's channel-specific 17:46:28 ah, maybe 17:46:34 because in debian channels, #N points to bugs.debian.org/N 17:46:40 and it's the same zwiebelbot 17:46:54 13:47:36 <+weasel> anarcat: it's mine. it runs on my stuff 17:47:04 13:47:48 <+weasel> ahf: https://github.com/weaselp/ticketbot/ is the module 17:47:41 perfect 17:48:08 okay, so (3)? 17:48:09 :) 17:49:13 sounds like it 17:49:52 who wants to hack at this 17:50:26 and when 17:50:29 and where do we fit that in the plan 17:51:10 *crickets* 17:51:12 i want to, but i want to be done with the other stuff first 17:51:14 such enthousiasm 17:51:29 i usually like playing with irc bots, but in this case i'm a little hesitant 17:51:29 it is not the highest priority right now i think, so we don't need to decide on that now 17:51:41 yes, not the highest priority 17:51:49 let's check to see if weasel wants to do it 17:52:36 * gaba brb 17:53:18 okay, is this something we can look at over the next week and then finish up next week? 17:53:21 we are near the hour 17:54:05 i can talk with weasel i guess 17:54:10 i am talking with weasel, even 17:54:51 cool 17:54:59 any objections to me ending the meeting or? 17:55:28 nope :) 17:55:35 k 17:55:42 less talk more rock 17:55:43 ;) 17:56:10 sounds good 17:57:33 thanks! 17:57:43 #endmeeting