Migration to Github

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Migration to Github

3nids
Dear PSC,

On the minutes of last PSC meeting, a "proposition to respond" was accepted, but if I'm correct there were no resonse yet.

Shall we take what is written in the minutes as the decision? Or shall we wait for a communication from your side ?

Thanks for letting us know as the accepted decision from the vote was to move to github before the release of 3.0...

Cheers,
Denis

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Andreas Neumann-4

Hi Denis,

The voting was controversial. I know that more people voted for the Github solution - strictly spoken this would mean that you could go ahead with migration to github. But the fact that so many people felt uncomfortable with moving to github - esp. in the light that it hasn't been shown by a test migration that issue tracking in github is really feasibly for that many tickets - I think that we shouldn't move to github yet.

Personally, I don't understand the rush anyway. Shouldn't we concentrate on the work around releasing QGIS 3 first and then when there are more resources available - first do a test migration and see if it is feasible to:

a) keep the history

b) show that tagging as the only way for structuring tickets is really feasible

Then we can still decide if we want to move to github or not. And finally, there are concerns that github is not a "free" platform. Neither Open Source not it was proven that tickets could be exported from Github properly, if we'd have to.

Please also note that both Richard and Jürgen invested quite a bit of time to upgrade Redmine and move to its own separate virtual machine. The current Redmine works both fast and stable and most people did not complain that it is hard to use. So not really a reason to rush away from Redmine.

Greetings,

Andreas


On 14.02.2018 18:48, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
Dear PSC,

On the minutes of last PSC meeting, a "proposition to respond" was accepted, but if I'm correct there were no resonse yet.

Shall we take what is written in the minutes as the decision? Or shall we wait for a communication from your side ?

Thanks for letting us know as the accepted decision from the vote was to move to github before the release of 3.0...

Cheers,
Denis


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

pcav
I think it couldn't have said better.
Thanks Andreas.

Il 14 febbraio 2018 21:29:41 CET, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

Hi Denis,

The voting was controversial. I know that more people voted for the Github solution - strictly spoken this would mean that you could go ahead with migration to github. But the fact that so many people felt uncomfortable with moving to github - esp. in the light that it hasn't been shown by a test migration that issue tracking in github is really feasibly for that many tickets - I think that we shouldn't move to github yet.

Personally, I don't understand the rush anyway. Shouldn't we concentrate on the work around releasing QGIS 3 first and then when there are more resources available - first do a test migration and see if it is feasible to:

a) keep the history

b) show that tagging as the only way for structuring tickets is really feasible

Then we can still decide if we want to move to github or not. And finally, there are concerns that github is not a "free" platform. Neither Open Source not it was proven that tickets could be exported from Github properly, if we'd have to.

Please also note that both Richard and Jürgen invested quite a bit of time to upgrade Redmine and move to its own separate virtual machine. The current Redmine works both fast and stable and most people did not complain that it is hard to use. So not really a reason to rush away from Redmine.

Greetings,

Andreas


On 14.02.2018 18:48, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
Dear PSC,

On the minutes of last PSC meeting, a "proposition to respond" was accepted, but if I'm correct there were no resonse yet.

Shall we take what is written in the minutes as the decision? Or shall we wait for a communication from your side ?

Thanks for letting us know as the accepted decision from the vote was to move to github before the release of 3.0...

Cheers,
Denis


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


--
Sorry for being short
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Tim Sutton-6
In reply to this post by 3nids
Hi Denis




On 14 Feb 2018, at 19:48, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear PSC,

On the minutes of last PSC meeting, a "proposition to respond" was accepted, but if I'm correct there were no resonse yet.

Shall we take what is written in the minutes as the decision? Or shall we wait for a communication from your side ?

Thanks for letting us know as the accepted decision from the vote was to move to github before the release of 3.0…

I can say that even though the vote was passed the PSC did not agree to immediately switching to GitHub since they had concerns that they feel supersede the vote (as mentioned by Andreas below). The plan is to discuss (and conclude!) this at the hackfest in Madeira. It would be great if you could lead the discussion [1] since you are highly invested in this and try to lead everyone to an amicable, practical solution which has a clear majority (if such a thing is possible). I also appeal to others who have strong opinions about the bug tracker to participate in the discussion - lock yourselves in a room and don’t come out until you have some kind of consensus …. I’d really hate to see the discussion carry on beyond the hackfest as I think it is a diversion of effort away from the core work of making QGIS.



Regards

Tim



Cheers,
Denis
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 



---

Tim Sutton
QGIS Project Steering Committee Chair





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Giovanni Manghi



I can say that even though the vote was passed the PSC did not agree to immediately switching to GitHub since they had concerns that they feel supersede the vote (as mentioned by Andreas below). The plan is to discuss (and conclude!) this at the hackfest in Madeira. It would be great if you could lead the discussion [1] since you are highly invested in this and try to lead everyone to an amicable, practical solution which has a clear majority (if such a thing is possible). I also appeal to others who have strong opinions about the bug tracker to participate in the discussion - lock yourselves in a room and don’t come out until you have some kind of consensus …. I’d really hate to see the discussion carry on beyond the hackfest as I think it is a diversion of effort away from the core work of making QGIS.


note: I will tentatively setup a dedicated laptop for this sessions (we have already scheduled a few ones, have a look in the wiki page): It will have a wifi mic, a decent web cam and external speakers. I will also bring my projector. Tim is setting up Zoom sessions (also linked in the wiki page).

Denis: can I add you as stream leader for this session?

cheers

-- G --


 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Vincent Picavet (ml)
In reply to this post by pcav
Hi,

On 14/02/2018 22:21, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> I think it couldn't have said better.

+1 here !

> Thanks Andreas.

From me too :-)

Vincent

>
> Il 14 febbraio 2018 21:29:41 CET, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]>
> ha scritto:
>
>     Hi Denis,
>
>     The voting was controversial. I know that more people voted for the
>     Github solution - strictly spoken this would mean that you could go
>     ahead with migration to github. But the fact that so many people
>     felt uncomfortable with moving to github - esp. in the light that it
>     hasn't been shown by a test migration that issue tracking in github
>     is really feasibly for that many tickets - I think that we shouldn't
>     move to github yet.
>
>     Personally, I don't understand the rush anyway. Shouldn't we
>     concentrate on the work around releasing QGIS 3 first and then when
>     there are more resources available - first do a test migration and
>     see if it is feasible to:
>
>     a) keep the history
>
>     b) show that tagging as the only way for structuring tickets is
>     really feasible
>
>     Then we can still decide if we want to move to github or not. And
>     finally, there are concerns that github is not a "free" platform.
>     Neither Open Source not it was proven that tickets could be exported
>     from Github properly, if we'd have to.
>
>     Please also note that both Richard and Jürgen invested quite a bit
>     of time to upgrade Redmine and move to its own separate virtual
>     machine. The current Redmine works both fast and stable and most
>     people did not complain that it is hard to use. So not really a
>     reason to rush away from Redmine.
>
>     Greetings,
>
>     Andreas
>
>
>     On 14.02.2018 18:48, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
>>     Dear PSC,
>>
>>     On the minutes of last PSC meeting, a "proposition to respond" was
>>     accepted, but if I'm correct there were no resonse yet.
>>
>>     Shall we take what is written in the minutes as the decision? Or
>>     shall we wait for a communication from your side ?
>>
>>     Thanks for letting us know as the accepted decision from the vote
>>     was to move to github before the release of 3.0...
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Denis
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Qgis-psc mailing list
>>     [hidden email]
>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
> --
> Sorry for being short
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

3nids
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6
Hi all,

Thanks you all for your detailed answers.

My mail was kind of a poke, because there was a lot of energy (again) put into discussions, and I think it is not fair that the discussion and the vote get no followup without notice.

The participatition rate to the vote (larger than usual) and the results are quite clear to me. People are conscient of what they have been voting for and of the implications. That's why I was requesting an official status from the PSC. And not just minutes saying there would be an answer.

Andreas, to me offering a new issue tracker is also part of releasing 3.0 (new logo, new Python doc website, etc). So too me, this is the perfect moment to focus on this too. To me, I concede.

On practical points, proof of concept was achieved by Matthias (and some others) and showed all of this is possible except attributing comments to the original author...bummer ;).

Now, I can understand you want to get this discussion in Madeira. It makes a lot of sense. Sadly, I won't attend the meeting, but I would be very grateful if I can attend remotely.

Community has shown its desire to move away from Redmine although I tend to understand it is mainly developers who suffer the most from it (because, damn, it's not integrated with the source code!).

On a more conceptual point of view, I think that this vote was exactly meant to tell the PSC the community wanted some changes. And it's the democratic way of bringing message from the QGIS citizen...And it deserved a proper answer with a plan of action.

I hope I didn't hurt anyone here and I'd like to thank you all at the PSC for your awesome job, I know it's volunteer and there's a lot. 

Best wishes,

Denis






Le mer. 14 févr. 2018 à 17:57, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi Denis




On 14 Feb 2018, at 19:48, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear PSC,

On the minutes of last PSC meeting, a "proposition to respond" was accepted, but if I'm correct there were no resonse yet.

Shall we take what is written in the minutes as the decision? Or shall we wait for a communication from your side ?

Thanks for letting us know as the accepted decision from the vote was to move to github before the release of 3.0…

I can say that even though the vote was passed the PSC did not agree to immediately switching to GitHub since they had concerns that they feel supersede the vote (as mentioned by Andreas below). The plan is to discuss (and conclude!) this at the hackfest in Madeira. It would be great if you could lead the discussion [1] since you are highly invested in this and try to lead everyone to an amicable, practical solution which has a clear majority (if such a thing is possible). I also appeal to others who have strong opinions about the bug tracker to participate in the discussion - lock yourselves in a room and don’t come out until you have some kind of consensus …. I’d really hate to see the discussion carry on beyond the hackfest as I think it is a diversion of effort away from the core work of making QGIS.



Regards

Tim



Cheers,
Denis
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 qgis-icon-60x60.png



---

Tim Sutton
QGIS Project Steering Committee Chair





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Giovanni Manghi
Hi Denis,

> Now, I can understand you want to get this discussion in Madeira. It makes a lot of sense. Sadly, I won't attend the meeting, but I would be very grateful if I can attend remotely.

here is the link for the zoom meeting

https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/DeveloperMeetingMadeira2018#moving-the-qgis-bug-tracker-away-from-redmine

are you available to lead the stream remotely?

cheers!

-- G --
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

3nids
Hi Giovanni,

Thanks a lot for your proposition, it would have a pleasure and honor.
But, internet connection here is not very good and even then, I'm not sure it's best to have someone leading remotely....
Maybe Vincent (even if he's for Gitlab ;)) would be ok to lead? He proved to be pragmatic and listening. Vincent?

I draw a small decision tree that shows the first decisions to take.
To me there's first:
1/ Decide on ethical and technical solution.
2/ See how to acheive it.
And not the other way around (see what we can do/migrate and decide later on the solution).

Maybe the discussion needs to be splitted. 
* Decide on 1/ in Madeira (the blue questions in the chart). 
* Create a group of people (volunteers?) to tackle the issues and report if everything is possible.
* Move on.
 
I'm happy to help structuring the discussion or let the leader do on his own.

Best wishes,
Denis


Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 11:15, Giovanni Manghi <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi Denis,

> Now, I can understand you want to get this discussion in Madeira. It makes a lot of sense. Sadly, I won't attend the meeting, but I would be very grateful if I can attend remotely.

here is the link for the zoom meeting

https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/DeveloperMeetingMadeira2018#moving-the-qgis-bug-tracker-away-from-redmine

are you available to lead the stream remotely?

cheers!

-- G --

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Jürgen E. Fischer
In reply to this post by 3nids
Hi Denis,

On Thu, 15. Feb 2018 at 15:05:14 +0000, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
> On practical points, proof of concept was achieved by Matthias (and some
> others) and showed all of this is possible except attributing comments to
> the original author...bummer ;).

News to me.  The migration didn't go though - I thought Matthias had given up
on the migration, because he was uncertain that we'd go through with it and it
might end up as a waste of energy.  And his target was not to do a full
migration - IIRC.

I tried a full migration - and ran into obstacles from github (eg. throtteling)
and had doubts about mapping all what we have in redmine to tags in github -
and how useable it would be which such a large number of issues and/or tags as
ours.

Richard tried again later and also gave up.

Attributing comments to the original author was just one thing that couldn't be
done at all.

We finally settled to upgrade and move redmine to a faster machine - and that
was that.

And when this was brought up again, we didn't talk about the implementation
(ie. how we map the trac/redmine ticket numbers to github issues - our commit
messages reference the tickets).

And then there was this sudden vote...

> (because, damn, it's not integrated with the source code!).

Of course it is linked to the source code.  It's just not linked to github,
because github doesn't allow us to - otherwise we'd just address PRs and issues
differently and let one point to github and the other to redmine.



Jürgen

--
Jürgen E. Fischer           norBIT GmbH             Tel. +49-4931-918175-31
Dipl.-Inf. (FH)             Rheinstraße 13          Fax. +49-4931-918175-50
Software Engineer           D-26506 Norden             http://www.norbit.de

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

signature.asc (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

3nids


Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 13:03, Jürgen E. Fischer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi Denis,

On Thu, 15. Feb 2018 at 15:05:14 +0000, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
> On practical points, proof of concept was achieved by Matthias (and some
> others) and showed all of this is possible except attributing comments to
> the original author...bummer ;).

News to me.  The migration didn't go though - I thought Matthias had given up
on the migration, because he was uncertain that we'd go through with it and it
might end up as a waste of energy.  And his target was not to do a full
migration - IIRC.

Well, it depends on what we mean by migration of course (moving all tickets? all tags? etc). 

I tried a full migration - and ran into obstacles from github (eg. throtteling)

proposition was to contact Github, correct?
 
and had doubts about mapping all what we have in redmine to tags in github

well, again depends on what we're migrating. History or tags. My proposition is to start with a new empty list for QGIS 3 and migrate issues on demand (with an assitant tool, triggered from Redmine or semi-manually).
And for the history, to keep Redmine as read-only.
 
-
and how useable it would be which such a large number of issues and/or tags as
ours.

Richard tried again later and also gave up.

Attributing comments to the original author was just one thing that couldn't be
done at all.

We finally settled to upgrade and move redmine to a faster machine - and that
was that.

Upgrading Redmine should certainely help the migration as the original migration tool was for more recent version, correct? 

And when this was brought up again, we didn't talk about the implementation
(ie. how we map the trac/redmine ticket numbers to github issues - our commit
messages reference the tickets).

And then there was this sudden vote...

I understand that. Let's wait for Madeira then. 
 

> (because, damn, it's not integrated with the source code!).

Of course it is linked to the source code.  It's just not linked to github,
because github doesn't allow us to - otherwise we'd just address PRs and issues
differently and let one point to github and the other to redmine.

Of course, I meant source code repo! 

I think we can discuss for ever on what has been done and what is possible. Then, we can adapt the decision tree and add the question:

If we can't keep the whole history, shall we stick to Redmine?
And what do we mean with whole history (added files, comments, tags, etc).

Denis


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Tim Sutton-6
Denis and friends


Please lets park this until the hackfest discussion. The issue already consumed so much community energy and I think these discussions get very circular. I’d prefer we broadcast outcomes of the vote / PSC and community discussion in Madeira after we have got a concrete plan of action. There are so many different view points that there is no way to resolve this without taking a position contrary to *someone’s* view. Along the way lets improve some of our statutes and community guidelines in particular I think addressing some of these issues in our charter may help to give a clearer path for future situations such as this:

1) clearly define who may call for a vote, when and how  a community vote may be called. 
2) clearly define what the criteria are for a vote being accepted (minimum number of votes, % majority, what to do if there are lots of abstentions)
3) define in which situations the PSC may override a vote, in which situations a vote may override the PSC
4) define our policy on using open source - do we mandate it, prefer it, or use the best / most pragmatic tool for the job

Thanks for your understanding and patience, lets resolve this with oil and grease not hammers and tongs!

Regards

Tim

On 15 Feb 2018, at 19:33, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:



Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 13:03, Jürgen E. Fischer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi Denis,

On Thu, 15. Feb 2018 at 15:05:14 +0000, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
> On practical points, proof of concept was achieved by Matthias (and some
> others) and showed all of this is possible except attributing comments to
> the original author...bummer ;).

News to me.  The migration didn't go though - I thought Matthias had given up
on the migration, because he was uncertain that we'd go through with it and it
might end up as a waste of energy.  And his target was not to do a full
migration - IIRC.

Well, it depends on what we mean by migration of course (moving all tickets? all tags? etc). 

I tried a full migration - and ran into obstacles from github (eg. throtteling)

proposition was to contact Github, correct?
 
and had doubts about mapping all what we have in redmine to tags in github

well, again depends on what we're migrating. History or tags. My proposition is to start with a new empty list for QGIS 3 and migrate issues on demand (with an assitant tool, triggered from Redmine or semi-manually).
And for the history, to keep Redmine as read-only.
 
-
and how useable it would be which such a large number of issues and/or tags as
ours.

Richard tried again later and also gave up.

Attributing comments to the original author was just one thing that couldn't be
done at all.

We finally settled to upgrade and move redmine to a faster machine - and that
was that.

Upgrading Redmine should certainely help the migration as the original migration tool was for more recent version, correct? 

And when this was brought up again, we didn't talk about the implementation
(ie. how we map the trac/redmine ticket numbers to github issues - our commit
messages reference the tickets).

And then there was this sudden vote...

I understand that. Let's wait for Madeira then. 
 

> (because, damn, it's not integrated with the source code!).

Of course it is linked to the source code.  It's just not linked to github,
because github doesn't allow us to - otherwise we'd just address PRs and issues
differently and let one point to github and the other to redmine.

Of course, I meant source code repo! 

I think we can discuss for ever on what has been done and what is possible. Then, we can adapt the decision tree and add the question:

If we can't keep the whole history, shall we stick to Redmine?
And what do we mean with whole history (added files, comments, tags, etc).

Denis

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 



---

Tim Sutton
QGIS Project Steering Committee Chair





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

smime.p7s (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

Sandro Santilli-4
In reply to this post by 3nids
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:48:57PM +0000, Denis Rouzaud wrote:

> move to github before the release of 3.0...

I can't help but note this mail was sent on "Free Software Love Day"
https://fsfe.org/campaigns/ilovefs/

I will take the chance to show my love for a few software projects:

 - Gitea, allowing us to control our git hosting via web.
 - Trac, which served and still keeps up ticket management for
   many of us (this is more of a love/hate relationship)
 - Certbot (letsencrypt), making it easy to build trusted website
 - Apache (it needs love, so here it is)
 - Matrix / Riot / Synaptics, taking chat back in the hands of people
 - Mailman, which is serving this mailing list

There are many more I love, but tried to keep my list short and
related. Sorry Redmine is not on that list but I really don't love it
:P

--strk;
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Migration to Github

3nids
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6
Hi Tim,


Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 15:48, Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Denis and friends


Please lets park this until the hackfest discussion. The issue already consumed so much community energy and I think these discussions get very circular. I’d prefer we broadcast outcomes of the vote / PSC and community discussion in Madeira after we have got a concrete plan of action. There are so many different view points that there is no way to resolve this without taking a position contrary to *someone’s* view. Along the way lets improve some of our statutes and community guidelines in particular I think addressing some of these issues in our charter may help to give a clearer path for future situations such as this:

1) clearly define who may call for a vote, when and how  a community vote may be called. 
2) clearly define what the criteria are for a vote being accepted (minimum number of votes, % majority, what to do if there are lots of abstentions)
3) define in which situations the PSC may override a vote, in which situations a vote may override the PSC
4) define our policy on using open source - do we mandate it, prefer it, or use the best / most pragmatic tool for the job

That sounds like a really good plan. 
4) is definitely the starting point for the discussion here.
 

Thanks for your understanding and patience, lets resolve this with oil and grease not hammers and tongs!

You proved to be a very a wise trouble-shooter once again.
Thanks,

Denis
 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc