Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 8:43:55 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:

> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:55:10 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
>> The conversion of the Trac tickets to GitHub Issues/PRs only works in one 
>> shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is not 
>> possible.
>> This means that we cannot continue to operate Trac after the switch.
>>
>
> That means (1) and (2) at the same time.
>
> I understand that the conversion is one shot process. But that does not 
> technically force trac to be read-only. I suspect that there may be still 
> some occasions to leave comments or something on trac after the migration. 
>

No, these comments will have to go to the issue / PR that is the result of 
the conversion from that ticket.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c190a404-375b-46dd-8a07-6c7d61919dcan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[Kwankyu Lee]

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:55:10 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

> The conversion of the Trac tickets to GitHub Issues/PRs only works in one 
> shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is not 
> possible.
> This means that we cannot continue to operate Trac after the switch.
>

That means (1) and (2) at the same time.

I understand that the conversion is one shot process. But that does not 
technically force trac to be read-only. I suspect that there may be still 
some occasions to leave comments or something on trac after the migration. 
Perhaps just my imaginary concern...

Okay. Thanks. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3580f98e-b869-49cd-a03a-5131cc786a70n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 5:44:52 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:

> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:30:05 PM UTC+9 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'd rather focus the vote primarily on the move away from trac, ...
>
>
> What would the move mean precisely? As there are two things to be done
>
> (1) The release manager declares to merge tickets only from Github, not 
> from Trac.
> (2) Trac goes to read-only mode. 
>
> the move can mean
>
> (a) First (1) and then after some time (2) 
>
> or 
>
> (b) (1) and (2) at the same time.
>

The conversion of the Trac tickets to GitHub Issues/PRs only works in one 
shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is not 
possible.
This means that we cannot continue to operate Trac after the switch.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/20608f08-46d8-489c-aae4-ce0cd2175e89n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[Kwankyu Lee]

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:30:05 PM UTC+9 dim...@gmail.com wrote:

I'd rather focus the vote primarily on the move away from trac, ...


What would the move mean precisely? As there are two things to be done

(1) The release manager declares to merge tickets only from Github, not 
from Trac.
(2) Trac goes to read-only mode. 

the move can mean

(a) First (1) and then after some time (2) 

or 

(b) (1) and (2) at the same time.

I think it should be (a) as we want to clean up trac (and final good-bye).





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0bc0cdc4-c6c8-4e10-bd50-a9bde519c36en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022, 13:22 kcrisman,  wrote:

>
> I think the 1st vote should be on moving from trac to Git**b; besides it
>> appears that, technically, move to Github is much easier than to Gitlab
>> (while there are migration tools available for trac->github, I could not
>> find anything for trac->gitlab).
>>
>> On the other hand github->gitlab move is easy (that's where gitlab gets
>> its business from).
>>
>
> Thanks for confirming that, this makes it clearer what the *current*
> options are (simplifying the voting, whether 1/2 or 2/3 or 601/1200 or ...).
>
> On a separate note, can someone explain to me why GL is preferable to
> those who prefer as open of tools as possible to GH?  At first I was under
> the impression that GL was not a business and was largely self-hosted, but
> it appears it's basically similar to GH or indeed Bitbucket (not that I'm
> suggesting we do BB!).  This question is *purely* technical and not
> intended to start a different set of arguments, i just feel that for those
> of us less familiar with GL it is helpful to know why it's preferable to
> some to GH.  (From https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/ it
> appears to be "open core" but with some important features only
> "source-available"; is that the reasoning?)
>

basically the main difference is that one can self-host an instance of GL
themselves, without paying anything. This is certainly not very easy, to do
such hosting, but still.

Otherwise GL lacks in freely available features, compared to GH (and
basically mostly copies what GH provides, with several important things
lagging behind).


-- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4b4aab3b-7067-4106-86cf-6b09f3448031n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq0oM1GkFxQEOmBh_ymPDiyFk27H-w67NYva2LCdCM%2ByOg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: incremental migration to github? [prompted by FUNDING issues!!!] + general flakiness of trac

[kcrisman]

> I think the 1st vote should be on moving from trac to Git**b; besides it 
> appears that, technically, move to Github is much easier than to Gitlab 
> (while there are migration tools available for trac->github, I could not 
> find anything for trac->gitlab).
>
> On the other hand github->gitlab move is easy (that's where gitlab gets 
> its business from).
>

Thanks for confirming that, this makes it clearer what the *current* 
options are (simplifying the voting, whether 1/2 or 2/3 or 601/1200 or ...).

On a separate note, can someone explain to me why GL is preferable to those 
who prefer as open of tools as possible to GH?  At first I was under the 
impression that GL was not a business and was largely self-hosted, but it 
appears it's basically similar to GH or indeed Bitbucket (not that I'm 
suggesting we do BB!).  This question is *purely* technical and not 
intended to start a different set of arguments, i just feel that for those 
of us less familiar with GL it is helpful to know why it's preferable to 
some to GH.  (From https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/ it 
appears to be "open core" but with some important features only 
"source-available"; is that the reasoning?)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4b4aab3b-7067-4106-86cf-6b09f3448031n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should really `make configure` download files on error?

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 2:07:21 AM UTC-7 mpn7...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Only developers who work with tickets that add packages or make changes 
> > to the build infrastructure run into the problem that the downloaded 
> > "configure" is not suitable. 
>
> And yet I think this is worth addressing. Those contributors who add 
> packages may, just like me, know nothing of sage's build infrastructure
>

The documentation is clear that developers that do this need the _bootstrap 
prerequisites.
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/534b119a-baf8-4bd1-a868-9d218528d487n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should really `make configure` download files on error?

[Martin Pépin]

Only developers who work with tickets that add packages or make changes 
to the build infrastructure run into the problem that the downloaded 
"configure" is not suitable.


And yet I think this is worth addressing. Those contributors who add 
packages may, just like me, know nothing of sage's build infrastructure 
and waste a lot of time in debugging, or simply give up.


I hear that it is convenient for many contributors. I am not willing to 
remove this. I just would like it not to happen in back when building sage.
Because it leads to hard to debug issues when adding packages (and also 
because I think it sort of defeats the purpose of building from source, 
but this might be a more personal opinion).


I believe it would be better to halt the building process when this 
happens and let the user make an inform choice about what they want.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/48c325f9-8c45-f7d2-d712-7e52a0af9da4%40gmail.com.