Open Stack

Thanks, Adam.

I haven't been on PTG, sorry. It's good that there has been a
discussion and agreement is reached.

Best regards,
-- Roman Gorshunov

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 1:05 AM Adam Spiers <aspiers at suse.com> wrote:
>
> Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:48:10PM +0200, Roman Gorshunov wrote:
> >>Hello Jim, team,
> >>
> >>I'm from Airship project. I agree with archival of Github mirrors of
> >>repositories.
>
> Which mirror repositories are you referring to here - a subset of the
> Airship repos which are no longer needed, or all Airship repo mirrors?
>
> I would prefer the majority of the mirrors not to be archived, for two
> reasons which Alan or maybe Matt noted in the Airship discussions this
> morning:
>
>     1. Some people instinctively go to GitHub search when they
>        want to find a software project.  Having useful search results
>        for "airship" on GitHub increases the discoverability of the
>        project.
>
>     2. Some people will judge the liveness of a project by its
>        activity metrics as shown on GitHub (e.g. number of recent
>        commits).  An active mirror helps show that the project is
>        alive and well.  In contrast, an archived mirror makes it look
>        like the project is dead.
>
> However if you are only talking about a small subset which are no
> longer needed, then archiving sounds reasonable.
>
> >>One small suggestion: could we have project descriptions
> >>adjusted to point to the new location of the source code repository,
> >>please? E.g. "The repo now lives at opendev.org/x/y".
>
> I agree it's helpful if the top-level README.rst has a sentence like
> "the authoritative location for this repo is https://...".
>
> >This is something important to keep in mind from infra side, once the
> >repo is read-only, we lose the ability to use the API to change it.
> >
> >From manage-projects.py POV, we can update the description before
> >flipping the archive bit without issues, just need to make sure we have
> >the ordering correct.
> >
> >Also, there is no API to unarchive a repo from github sadly, for that a
> >human needs to log into github UI and click the button. I have no idea
> >why.
>
> Good points, but unless we're talking about a small subset of Airship
> repos, I'm a bit puzzled why this is being discussed, because I
> thought we reached consensus this morning on a) ensuring that all
> Airship projects are continually mirrored to GitHub, and b) trying to
> transfer those mirrors from the "openstack" organization to the
> "airship" one, assuming we can first persuade GitHub to kick out the
> org-squatters.  This transferral would mean that GitHub would
> automatically redirect requests from
>
>     https://github.com/openstack/airship-*
>
> to
>
>     https://github.com/airship/...
>
> Consensus is documented in lines 107-112 of:
>
>     https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/airship-ptg-train