RE: [tc][all] Github mirroring (or lack thereof) for unofficial projects
Hello Jim, team,
I'm from Airship project. I agree with archival of Github mirrors of repositories. 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".
Thanks to AJaeger & clarkb.
Thank you.
Best regards, -- Roman Gorshunov
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. 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".
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.
- Paul
Thanks to AJaeger & clarkb.
Thank you.
Best regards, -- Roman Gorshunov
Paul Belanger pabelanger@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:
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@suse.com wrote:
Paul Belanger pabelanger@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
Roman Gorshunov paye600@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Adam.
I haven't been on PTG, sorry. It's good that there has been a discussion and agreement is reached.
Oh sorry, I assumed you must have been in the room when we discussed it, since your mail arrived just after then ;-) But it was just a coincidence! :-)
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:05 PM Paul Belanger pabelanger@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. 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".
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.
Agree this is a good idea.
There's been no objections to this plan for some time now. Is there someone from the infra team available to do this archival (or work with me to do it)?
// jim
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.
- Paul
Thanks to AJaeger & clarkb.
Thank you.
Best regards, -- Roman Gorshunov
Hi Jim,
Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:05 PM Paul Belanger pabelanger@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. 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".
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.
Agree this is a good idea.
Just checking you saw my reply to the same email from Paul?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005846.html
There's been no objections to this plan for some time now.
I might be missing some context, but I *think* my email could be interpreted as an objection based on the reasons listed in it.
Also, the understanding I took away from the PTG session was that there was consensus *not* to archive repos, but rather to ensure that mirroring and redirects are set up properly. However I am of course very willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Please could you take a look at that mail and let us know what you think? Thanks!
Adam
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:51 PM Adam Spiers aspiers@suse.com wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:05 PM Paul Belanger pabelanger@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. 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".
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.
Agree this is a good idea.
Just checking you saw my reply to the same email from Paul?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005846.html
Sorry, yes I saw it, but then later mis-remembered it. :(
There's been no objections to this plan for some time now.
I might be missing some context, but I *think* my email could be interpreted as an objection based on the reasons listed in it.
Also, the understanding I took away from the PTG session was that there was consensus *not* to archive repos, but rather to ensure that mirroring and redirects are set up properly. However I am of course very willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Please could you take a look at that mail and let us know what you think? Thanks!
So there's two things to do, in this order:
1) do a proper transfer of the Airship repos 2) Archive any other repos on github that are no longer in the openstack namespace.
Has the airship team been working with the infra team on getting the transfer done? I would think that could be done quickly, and then we can proceed with archiving the others.
// jim
Adam
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:05 PM Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:51 PM Adam Spiers aspiers@suse.com wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:05 PM Paul Belanger pabelanger@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. 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".
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.
Agree this is a good idea.
Just checking you saw my reply to the same email from Paul?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005846.html
Sorry, yes I saw it, but then later mis-remembered it. :(
There's been no objections to this plan for some time now.
I might be missing some context, but I *think* my email could be interpreted as an objection based on the reasons listed in it.
Also, the understanding I took away from the PTG session was that there was consensus *not* to archive repos, but rather to ensure that mirroring and redirects are set up properly. However I am of course very willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Please could you take a look at that mail and let us know what you think? Thanks!
So there's two things to do, in this order:
- do a proper transfer of the Airship repos
- Archive any other repos on github that are no longer in the openstack
namespace.
Has the airship team been working with the infra team on getting the transfer done? I would think that could be done quickly, and then we can proceed with archiving the others.
Bumping this thread.
Looks like the airship transfer is done[0], is that correct?
I don't believe step 2 has been done yet; is there someone from the infra team that can do that or help me do it?
[0] https://github.com/openstack/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=airship&type=&lan...
// jim
On Thu, May 30, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:05 PM Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:51 PM Adam Spiers aspiers@suse.com wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:05 PM Paul Belanger pabelanger@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. 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".
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.
Agree this is a good idea.
Just checking you saw my reply to the same email from Paul?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005846.html
Sorry, yes I saw it, but then later mis-remembered it. :(
There's been no objections to this plan for some time now.
I might be missing some context, but I *think* my email could be interpreted as an objection based on the reasons listed in it.
Also, the understanding I took away from the PTG session was that there was consensus *not* to archive repos, but rather to ensure that mirroring and redirects are set up properly. However I am of course very willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Please could you take a look at that mail and let us know what you think? Thanks!
So there's two things to do, in this order:
- do a proper transfer of the Airship repos
- Archive any other repos on github that are no longer in the openstack namespace.
Has the airship team been working with the infra team on getting the transfer done? I would think that could be done quickly, and then we can proceed with archiving the others.
Bumping this thread.
Looks like the airship transfer is done[0], is that correct?
Correct.
I don't believe step 2 has been done yet; is there someone from the infra team that can do that or help me do it?
If you provide us with the canonical list of things to archive I think we can probably script that up or do lots of clicking depending on the size of the list I guess.
[0] https://github.com/openstack/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=airship&type=&lan...
// jim
On 2019-05-30 09:00:20 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote: [...]
If you provide us with the canonical list of things to archive I think we can probably script that up or do lots of clicking depending on the size of the list I guess.
[...]
Alternatively, I's like to believe we're at the point where we can add other interested parties to the curating group for the openstack org on GH, at which point any of them could volunteer to do the archiving.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2019-05-30 09:00:20 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote: [...]
If you provide us with the canonical list of things to archive I think we can probably script that up or do lots of clicking depending on the size of the list I guess.
[...]
Alternatively, I's like to believe we're at the point where we can add other interested parties to the curating group for the openstack org on GH, at which point any of them could volunteer to do the archiving.
Thanks Clark/Jeremy. I'll make a list tomorrow, as we'll need that in either case. :)
// jim
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:15 PM Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2019-05-30 09:00:20 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote: [...]
If you provide us with the canonical list of things to archive I think we can probably script that up or do lots of clicking depending on the size of the list I guess.
[...]
Alternatively, I's like to believe we're at the point where we can add other interested parties to the curating group for the openstack org on GH, at which point any of them could volunteer to do the archiving.
Thanks Clark/Jeremy. I'll make a list tomorrow, as we'll need that in either case. :)
I think what we want is to archive all Github repos in the openstack, openstack-dev, and openstack-infra orgs, which don't have something with the same name on Gitea in the openstack namespace. Is that right?
If so, here's the list I came up with: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752373/
And the code, in case I win the lottery and disappear: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752374/
// jim
On Fri, May 31, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:15 PM Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2019-05-30 09:00:20 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote: [...]
If you provide us with the canonical list of things to archive I think we can probably script that up or do lots of clicking depending on the size of the list I guess.
[...]
Alternatively, I's like to believe we're at the point where we can add other interested parties to the curating group for the openstack org on GH, at which point any of them could volunteer to do the archiving.
Thanks Clark/Jeremy. I'll make a list tomorrow, as we'll need that in either case. :)
I think what we want is to archive all Github repos in the openstack, openstack-dev, and openstack-infra orgs, which don't have something with the same name on Gitea in the openstack namespace. Is that right?
Close, I think we can archive all repos in openstack-dev and openstack-infra. Part of the repo renames we did today were to get the repos that were left behind in those two orgs into their longer term homes. Then any project in https://github.com/openstack that is not in https://opendev.org/openstack can be archived in Github too.
If so, here's the list I came up with: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752373/
And the code, in case I win the lottery and disappear: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752374/
// jim
On 01/06/2019 01.50, Clark Boylan wrote:
Close, I think we can archive all repos in openstack-dev and openstack-infra. Part of the repo renames we did today were to get the repos that were left behind in those two orgs into their longer term homes. Then any project in https://github.com/openstack that is not in https://opendev.org/openstack can be archived in Github too.
Once https://review.opendev.org/661803 merged, we can archive openstack-infra. openstack-dev is already unused.
We have then only retired repos in openstack-infra,
Andreas
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:51 PM Clark Boylan cboylan@sapwetik.org wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:15 PM Jim Rollenhagen jim@jimrollenhagen.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org
wrote:
On 2019-05-30 09:00:20 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote: [...]
If you provide us with the canonical list of things to archive I think we can probably script that up or do lots of clicking depending on the size of the list I guess.
[...]
Alternatively, I's like to believe we're at the point where we can add other interested parties to the curating group for the openstack org on GH, at which point any of them could volunteer to do the archiving.
Thanks Clark/Jeremy. I'll make a list tomorrow, as we'll need that in either case. :)
I think what we want is to archive all Github repos in the openstack, openstack-dev, and openstack-infra orgs, which don't have something with the same name on Gitea in the openstack namespace. Is that right?
Close, I think we can archive all repos in openstack-dev and openstack-infra. Part of the repo renames we did today were to get the repos that were left behind in those two orgs into their longer term homes. Then any project in https://github.com/openstack that is not in https://opendev.org/openstack can be archived in Github too.
Cool, that made me realize I wasn't outputting the org, and now I don't need to. :)
New list (gathered only from the openstack org): http://paste.openstack.org/show/752443/
And new code: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752444/
And yes, I realize I pasted my token there, it's no longer valid :)
// jim
On 2019-05-15 18:51:10 +0100 (+0100), Adam Spiers wrote: [...]
Also, the understanding I took away from the PTG session was that there was consensus *not* to archive repos, but rather to ensure that mirroring and redirects are set up properly. However I am of course very willing to be persuaded otherwise.
[...]
Just to back up Jim's clarification, the idea is to transfer/redirect any repos which request it, and archive the rest. Archival itself is a non-destructive operation anyway, and we should still be able to unarchive and transfer others later if asked.
Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2019-05-15 18:51:10 +0100 (+0100), Adam Spiers wrote: [...]
Also, the understanding I took away from the PTG session was that there was consensus *not* to archive repos, but rather to ensure that mirroring and redirects are set up properly. However I am of course very willing to be persuaded otherwise.
[...]
Just to back up Jim's clarification, the idea is to transfer/redirect any repos which request it, and archive the rest. Archival itself is a non-destructive operation anyway, and we should still be able to unarchive and transfer others later if asked.
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks both for the replies!
participants (7)
-
Adam Spiers
-
Andreas Jaeger
-
Clark Boylan
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Jim Rollenhagen
-
Paul Belanger
-
Roman Gorshunov