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

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:12:48 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 5:09:04 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> I've enabled wikis on our GitHub and started >> >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b >> > I would suggest

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

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 1:46 AM John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2022, 22:44 John H Palmieri, wrote: >>> >>> William, this is exactly why I search in the sage-trac Google group rather >>> than on

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

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2022, 22:44 John H Palmieri, wrote: > >> William, this is exactly why I search in the sage-trac Google group >> rather than on the trac website. > > > it's looks easy to set up posting of

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022, 22:44 John H Palmieri, wrote: > William, this is exactly why I search in the sage-trac Google group rather > than on the trac website. it's looks easy to set up posting of issues/comments to a google group. The sage-trac group is also good for browsing to see recent

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

William, this is exactly why I search in the sage-trac Google group rather than on the trac website. The sage-trac group is also good for browsing to see recent activity. On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:12:59 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 10:27 AM Matthias

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

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > 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

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

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:12:59 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is a 3 minute video demoing importing github repos to gitlab, > which emphasizes answers to a lot of natural frequent questions > (involving users, issue comments, labels, etc.): > >

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

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:12:59 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > In my experience, the search built into GitHub is at least 10x (or > maybe 100x?) faster than our trac search, e.g., try searching > https://trac.sagemath.org/search versus > https://github.com/python/cpython/issues .

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

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 10:27 AM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:14:26 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: >> >> On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 17:55:10 UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: >>> >>> >>> The conversion of the Trac tickets to GitHub Issues/PRs only works in one >>>

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

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:14:26 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 17:55:10 UTC-7 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

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

Another way that trac is searchable is via the Google group sage-trac. Can we set up a similar group if we move to Github? On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:14:26 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 17:55:10 UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> >> The conversion of the

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

On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 17:55:10 UTC-7 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. > Migration *to* GH is one thing, but as has been pointed

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022, 01:44 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:34 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> - Some people with strong opinions said that they are not ready to formulate >> their views. >> >> My impression is that trac is now doing okay, > > > Note that trac's bus factor is down to 1/3. It took efforts of Frederick, > Jan, and

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 19:54 John H Palmieri, wrote: > A few comments: > > - We have a strong history in Sage of conducting votes, and I absolutely > think we need to do that for this issue. We also have a history (with > perhaps a small number of exceptions) of having majority rule, and I think >

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

A few comments: - We have a strong history in Sage of conducting votes, and I absolutely think we need to do that for this issue. We also have a history (with perhaps a small number of exceptions) of having majority rule, and I think that's what we should do here: no need for a 2/3 vote. An

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

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:08:20 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Le jeudi 15 septembre 2022 à 18:34:22 UTC+2, Matthias Koeppe a écrit : > >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:21:09 AM UTC-7 Eric

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 17:20 kcrisman, wrote: > > I'd rather focus the vote primarily on the move away from trac, not >> specifying whether it's GitHub or GitLab. >> >> >> >> > Given that, we face Arrow's theorem in picking a voting system >> (especially if we also want to allow people to

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

> I'd rather focus the vote primarily on the move away from trac, not > specifying whether it's GitHub or GitLab. > > > > > Given that, we face Arrow's theorem in picking a voting system > (especially if we also want to allow people to abstain). I'm normally in > favor of a Borda count

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

Le jeudi 15 septembre 2022 à 18:34:22 UTC+2, Matthias Koeppe a écrit : > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:21:09 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon >> wrote: >> >>> I don't understand why in the post >>>

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

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:19 AM David Roe wrote: > > I've started working on a list of pros and cons to be included in the email > proposing a vote. Even though I favor the switch, I've tried to accurately > and neutrally describe the arguments in each direction. I welcome help and >

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

Hi Seb, On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 7:57 AM seb@gmail.com wrote: > > Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 21:22:25 UTC+2: >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: >>> >>> c. Several people refuse to open a GitHub account >> >> >> I

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

I've started working on a list of pros and cons to be included in the email proposing a vote. Even though I favor the switch, I've tried to accurately and neutrally describe the arguments in each direction. I welcome help and

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

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 11:57:35 PM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote: > About ten years before Google was on Earth someone put a poster on our > corridor of the University building: *Microsoft free area*. We all were > proud about that. But at that point nobody knew what should come

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

Dear Karmakar, On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 09:36, Karmakar Subroto wrote: > I don't want this email more..please removed me from your mailing > schedule. > At the bottom of each email it says: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. * To

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

I don't want this email more..please removed me from your mailing schedule. On Fri, Sep 16, 2022, 12:57 PM seb@gmail.com wrote: > Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 21:22:25 > UTC+2: > >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: >>

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

Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 21:22:25 UTC+2: > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: > >> c. Several people refuse to open a GitHub account > > > I don't know anyone who does. I think they should speak up for themselves >

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

Thank you both! Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 18:17:11 UTC+2: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:40:12 PM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com > wrote: > >> What is the proposed workflow to merge the develop branch after a new >> release into PR (or other) branches of

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

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: > c. Several people refuse to open a GitHub account I don't know anyone who does. I think they should speak up for themselves (unless they also refuse to participate in this list hosted on Google) so we can

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

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: > I would like to voice serious objections to this move. > > To me, moving to a GitHub-centric development contradicts > the inclusiveness and openness of the SageMath project. > If you really think our project is doing

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022, 15:53 William Stein, wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 2:17 AM Samuel Lelièvre > wrote: > > Increasingly, services such as GitHub and Google require > > users to have a mobile phone number, to share it with them, > > and to be able to receive text messages on them in order >

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

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:21:09 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > >> I don't understand why in the post >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/QooOF1GLMOs >> Matthias asked to remove developer names from

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

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: > d. Moving to GitHub because a lot of software development > has moved there does not seem a relevant argument to me. No, Samuel, this comment trivializes what has been said regarding the benefits of a big network.

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

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:40:12 PM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote: > What is the proposed workflow to merge the develop branch after a new > release into PR (or other) branches of your fork (i.e re-basing)? Obviously > this is possible by pushing on sync in the web interface or

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

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:21:09 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > I don't understand why in the post > https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/QooOF1GLMOs > Matthias asked to remove developer names from > (1) https://trac.sagemath.org/#AccountNamesMappedtoRealNames > Aren't we

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

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 2:17 AM Samuel Lelièvre wrote: > Increasingly, services such as GitHub and Google require > users to have a mobile phone number, to share it with them, > and to be able to receive text messages on them in order > to be able to log in or access certain features. I don't

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

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 2:47 PM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > Le jeudi 15 septembre 2022 à 15:32:22 UTC+2, dim...@gmail.com a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022, 14:21 Eric Gourgoulhon, wrote: >>> >>> I would like to ask about a point that does not seem to have been discussed >>> before

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

Le jeudi 15 septembre 2022 à 15:32:22 UTC+2, dim...@gmail.com a écrit : > > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2022, 14:21 Eric Gourgoulhon, wrote: > >> I would like to ask about a point that does not seem to have been >> discussed before (apologies if it was): >> If the migration to Gihub takes place, would

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022, 14:21 Eric Gourgoulhon, wrote: > I would like to ask about a point that does not seem to have been > discussed before (apologies if it was): > If the migration to Gihub takes place, would there remain somewhere a > read-only copy of Trac? more precisely, of all the Trac

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

I would like to ask about a point that does not seem to have been discussed before (apologies if it was): If the migration to Gihub takes place, would there remain somewhere a read-only copy of Trac? more precisely, of all the Trac tickets? The numerous discussions there constitute a valuable

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

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:17 AM Samuel Lelièvre wrote: > > One more thought. > > Increasingly, services such as GitHub and Google require > users to have a mobile phone number, to share it with them, > and to be able to receive text messages on them in order > to be able to log in or access

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

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:09 AM Samuel Lelièvre wrote: > > On Friday, 09 Sep 2022, 09:54 UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > I am resurrecting this thread, as in addition of trac continuing to eat up > > funds > > (at a rate of over US$ 10 per day at the moment), it has gotten increasingly > >

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

One more thought. Increasingly, services such as GitHub and Google require users to have a mobile phone number, to share it with them, and to be able to receive text messages on them in order to be able to log in or access certain features. I do not think contributing to Sage should require

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

On Friday, 09 Sep 2022, 09:54 UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > I am resurrecting this thread, as in addition of trac continuing to eat up > funds > (at a rate of over US$ 10 per day at the moment), it has gotten increasingly > broken. In particular, in the last 2 weeks no new developers can really

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022, 07:40 seb@gmail.com, wrote: > What is the proposed workflow to merge the develop branch after a new > release into PR (or other) branches of your fork (i.e re-basing)? Obviously > this is possible by pushing on sync in the web interface or typing gh > repo sync

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

What is the proposed workflow to merge the develop branch after a new release into PR (or other) branches of your fork (i.e re-basing)? Obviously this is possible by pushing on sync in the web interface or typing gh repo sync USERNAME/sage -b branch in the command line. But how do you resolve

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

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:50:43 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote: > Smaller suggestions can also be made through the github web interface as > part of the pullrequest review, see > https://egghead.io/lessons/github-add-suggestions-in-a-github-pr-review > and >

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

I think for now we only need to describe the process up to the point of "positive review". The discussion on how to do release management etc. is best held when Volker finds the time to join the discussion on these things. On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:58:40 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com

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

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:10:47 AM UTC-7 john.c...@gmail.com wrote: > GH issues can also be used as "metatickets" on trac, with a checklist of > things to do which can be checked off as they are dealt with by various > PRs. > Thanks, I've added this to

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

GH issues can also be used as "metatickets" on trac, with a checklist of things to do which can be checked off as they are dealt with by various PRs. We often do this with the LMFDB whose code development is done on GH via issues and PRs as described by others here. We have fewer developers of

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

I think we need also another branch "merge-queue" which serves as the target for pull requests, with branch protection rules linear history, require positive review and checks. Also "Release Manager @vbraun merges positively reviewed tickets into his branch https://github.com/vbraun/sage;

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

Smaller suggestions can also be made through the github web interface as part of the pullrequest review, see https://egghead.io/lessons/github-add-suggestions-in-a-github-pr-review and

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022, 03:15 Nils Bruin, wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 14:04:24 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 21:56 Nils Bruin, wrote: >> >>> I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac >>> checkout ..." is. Because with

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

David Roe schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 07:39:26 UTC+2: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:36 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 23:03 Matthias Koeppe, wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry >>> (sage-googlesucks@xxx)

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:31:09 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:43:32 UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> One way to do this is using >>

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:26:04 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > My understanding from the > allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork > documentation >

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:36 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 23:03 Matthias Koeppe, > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry >> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: >> >>> Also, several people have already explicitely requested for a break

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

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:43:32 UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > >> What I was not able to find, though, was the equivalent of "git trac >> push", which can sometimes be very convenient for making a small friendly >>

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

My understanding from the allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork documentation is that only users who have push

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:33:07 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote: > Yes, having "issues" and "pull requests" separated is a huge change to the > way things are handled on trac. Naturally there are advantages and > disadvantages for both approaches. In the github world, issues are

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 14:04:24 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > >> git-trac's functionality is provided by cli, a command line tool ftom >> GitHub, so this is all covered (except parts of git-trac only used by >>

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > > Perhaps it's nice to address how to "make a friendly amendment" to someone > else's "pr" or "issue", or how to collaborate on tickets/issues/pr's . In > my work on trac tickets that happened quite a bit and "git trac >

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:15:10 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > What I was not able to find, though, was the equivalent of "git trac > push", which can sometimes be very convenient for making a small friendly > amendment to a proposed change. I would not expect to be able to push to >

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

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 14:04:24 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 21:56 Nils Bruin, wrote: > >> I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac >> checkout ..." is. Because with trac, all ticket branches are present in the >> "trac"

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 23:03 Matthias Koeppe, wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry > (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > >> Also, several people have already explicitely requested for a break (if >> not a truce, given the level of agressivity). > > > Excuse me, Thierry,

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > given the conditions and how they affect my mental health, > Taking care of one's mental health is very important, and I do hope that you'll be able to cope. It is an individual's responsibility to take

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-7 Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > Also, several people have already explicitely requested for a break (if > not a truce, given the level of agressivity). Excuse me, Thierry, your accusations about others being aggressive & likening

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

Hi, On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 01:30:05AM -0400, David Roe wrote: > While I strongly support the shift to github, I also agree with Travis that > we should vote on a change this major, and give the community enough time > to weigh in. I would also encourage people on both sides of the debate to >

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 21:56 Nils Bruin, wrote: > I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac > checkout ..." is. Because with trac, all ticket branches are present in the > "trac" repository, you can pull anything from there. If I have to > merge/pull from developer

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

I'd actually be interested in knowing what the substitute for "git trac checkout ..." is. Because with trac, all ticket branches are present in the "trac" repository, you can pull anything from there. If I have to merge/pull from developer branch, do I need to add another remote to my local

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

I've added this to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#proposed-workflow-on-github-with-transition-guide-from-trac now. On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:05:48 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:36:18 PM UTC+9 Matthias

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:03:36 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > > Consensus ?! Hmm - consensus means that everyone is for. I don't think >> we will have it. So we can stop now, no? I think a simple majority is a >> meaningful way to vote here. >> > > Also, given the level of activity

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:25 AM TB wrote: > Somewhere in this thread, or in a related thread, the trac backups were > mentioned. It reminded me of the the incident > https://www.asmeurer.com/blog/posts/the-sympy-hackerrank-dmca-incident/ > where SymPy was wrongfully accused of a copyright

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

First, I would like to thank all past, present and future maintainers of the SageMath infrastructure. This is a hard job, which is not always acknowledged. Somewhere in this thread, or in a related thread, the trac backups were mentioned. It reminded me

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

> > Consensus ?! Hmm - consensus means that everyone is for. I don't think > we will have it. So we can stop now, no? I think a simple majority is a > meaningful way to vote here. > Also, given the level of activity here, a separate thread for voting on this (whenever that becomes

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

> While I strongly support the shift to github, I also agree with Travis > that we should vote on a change this major, and give the community enough > time to weigh in. I would also encourage people on both sides of the > debate to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. To those who have

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:43 AM Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > Le mardi 13 septembre 2022 à 07:30:23 UTC+2, David Roe a écrit : >> >> >> Here's a proposal on a timeline for making a decision (I welcome feedback >> from anyone who thinks this is too fast or too slow). >> >> * We spend another few

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

Le mardi 13 septembre 2022 à 07:30:23 UTC+2, David Roe a écrit : > > Here's a proposal on a timeline for making a decision (I welcome feedback > from anyone who thinks this is too fast or too slow). > > * We spend another few days discussing pros and cons and refining the > proposed workflows.

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

Yes, having "issues" and "pull requests" separated is a huge change to the way things are handled on trac. Naturally there are advantages and disadvantages for both approaches. In the github world, issues are treated more as a list of open tasks and are usually more user-focused. For example,

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

Matthias, people have their own workflows that evolved around using trac for a long time. It is only natural that there are now questions of how these workflows will look like when using github. We should give space to such questions following the spirit of "there are no stupid questions".

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

All, let's please not expand the discussion of exotic workflows. Sharing files, sharing branches etc. is a solved problem, with multiple easy solutions. This is not 2005 any more, when having an SVN server was the gold standard to sharing & versioning files. On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 08:57 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel, < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw >> wrote: >> >>> How is the workflow that our

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:57 AM 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw >> wrote: >> >>> How is the workflow that

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:57:47 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > With our current setup, I could push the branch to the server, email you > the branch name, and you could pull it. > So you're discussing a use case of the trac git server to share a branch that has nothing to do

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> How is the workflow that our current developers sometimes use irrelevant? >>> Granted, this is a less used feature, but I believe it makes

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:02:19 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > From a number of trac tickets (mainly #30363) and the GitHub UN link > thread coming across more as a demand to me with the imposed deadline, it > gave off this impression. > Can't criticize both lack of a plan &

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, 04:39 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel, < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not have an general > clear consensus about doing this move. A few people are yelling we should > move to GH, and a lot of the same people

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:10:28 AM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > How is the workflow that our current developers sometimes use irrelevant? >> Granted, this is a less used feature, but I believe it makes it harder to >> share branches privately. It has been useful for me in the past

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:30:19 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:25:57 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> whereas with trac, things are highly concentrated on tickets, which are a single point of reference. Using the GH/GL model, we have

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:36:18 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:36:06 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> Last I remember, using https instead of ssh meant I had to input my UN/PW >> every time I did a push or a pull >> > > >

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:42:58 PM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:30:39 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> Please, Travis, the high activity that you see here is in response to the >>> requests for having a fleshed out plan before a discussion

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:30:23 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > Here's a proposal on a timeline for making a decision (I welcome feedback > from anyone who thinks this is too fast or too slow). > > * We spend another few days discussing pros and cons and refining the > proposed workflows.

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:30:39 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > Please, Travis, the high activity that you see here is in response to the >> requests for having a fleshed out plan before a discussion can even happen. >> So we fleshed out the plan. >>

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:36:06 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > Last I remember, using https instead of ssh meant I had to input my UN/PW > every time I did a push or a pull > https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/getting-started-with-git/caching-your-github-credentials-in-git

  1   2   3   >