Andy put together some excellent resources and migration plans. The main sticking point, as he mentioned, was needing to have a conversation with the github people about the lack of a discreet state for a pull request. There has been a decent amount of conversation back and forth around this point, and it has been pointed out that there are certainly some workarounds that could be put in to place. The main concern with them is that, while they would be technically machine processable (any combination of plusses and minuses is algorithmically possible to deal with) - without UI indication of the actual results of that algorithm, it would quickly become quite difficult for a normal human to be able to follow/track the state of a given pull request at any given point in time - and absolutely impossible to get an overview list of the state of all of the outstanding pull requests.
My concern is that if we move forward using the suggested workarounds, we will be losing functionality/state information that we currently have. While this is not functionality that is important to the developers who have thusfar expressed an opinion - and I do appreciate that it's frustrating to be blocked on something that seems unimportant due to personal lack of use - it is important to those of us, like ttx and myself, who deal with the project from a slightly different perspective. However, the data structure behind the pull request when accessed over the REST API does contain a field that ostensibly could be used to track something like this - and thus why I've been asking since the ODS to be introducted to someone at github so that we can chat about solutions. As far as I can tell at this point, this is the only important sticking point from my end. Just while we're talking about it - we will also need to figure out something to substitute for the lack of monotonically increasing revnos in git for our PPA packages - but I'm fairly sure we can either accomplish that via Jenkins - or perhaps a local database of revisions that we've released. Once we can get the stateless nature of pull requests addressed in a predictable and understandable manner, I think we will have solved the fundamental points and the rest of the differences will really just be a matter of addressing philosophical differences in workflow as we come across them. Additionally, barring direction to the contrary, I was going to sic Jim Blair on the jenkins tarmac replacement and finishing the jclouds plugin as soon as he's on board, so we should have that piece of the puzzle sorted in early July. All of that to say, unless the guys at github are just completely intractable and unwilling to work with us to find a solution (which I doubt they will be), I see no reason why we would not be able to hit the end of July given where we are right now. Monty On 06/13/2011 11:40 AM, Andy Smith wrote: > I shared an initial plan with a few people (mostly PTLs + thierry, I > think) and it kind of stalled out on getting pushed to the main list due > to Monty / Thierry wanting additional features from GitHub. > > I've been mostly talking with John DIckinson as it seems like Swift is > the likely first project to switch over, and sharing the migration tool > I wrote: https://github.com/termie/lp2gh > > The interesting pages there are: > > https://github.com/termie/lp2gh/blob/master/docs/moving_branches.rst > > and > > https://github.com/termie/lp2gh/blob/master/docs/moving_issues.rst > > I can rebuild the original email about a plan, but it will still need to > get buy in from Monty to move forward. > > --andy > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, John Dickinson > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:17 PM, John Purrier wrote: > > > > For tomorrow's meeting... PTL's, can you update us on where each > of your > > projects stand on this? Termie and mtaylor (added to the email) > were going > > to come up with a plan for review, is this getting done? > > I have a very good start on swift's migration plan. We've been > practicing some with the swauth project in Launchpad/GitHub. I've > got a few docs written on it, and I'm planning on sharing those with > other involved persons as soon as I have a little more details. Our > plan is to set a date and make sure all parties are taken care of. > > --John > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
