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

2022-09-18 Thread John H Palmieri 


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 issues/comments to a google group.
>
> The sage-trac group is also good for browsing to see recent activity.
>>
>
> for recent activities there are GitHub tools, probably more suitable for 
> such a tack.
>

Great! Is there any information on this on the migration plan? I didn't see 
anything at a quick glance.


>
>> 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 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 shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is 
>>> not possible. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Migration *to* GH is one thing, but as has been pointed out, we 
>>> should have an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to 
>>> move from github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a 
>>> git repo. However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in 
>>> tickets on trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of 
>>> immense value as well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial 
>>> as claimed before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility 
>>> study of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how 
>>> do cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)? 
>>> Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus 
>>> its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have 
>>> something at least matching that for GH. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part 
>>> of our github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently 
>>> resilient against technological problems but a new failure mode is 
>>> introduced due to their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely 
>>> event that sagemath on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or 
>>> malice?) we might not be at their mercy for extracting our valuable 
>>> history. 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > I agree that it would be valuable to add at least some starting points 
>>> in this direction. 
>>> > As a beginning, I have created the section: 
>>> > 
>>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#retrieving-data-from-github
>>>  
>>> > to include the link https://docs.github.com/en/rest to GitHub's REST 
>>> API, which gives access to everything and is extremely well documented. 
>>>
>>> I used this GitHub REST API a lot recently to implement proxying of 
>>> content from GitHub to CoCalc, and it is indeed *extremely* good. 
>>>
>>> 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.): 
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI 
>>>
>>> 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 . In addition GitHub's 
>>> advanced search capabilities are useful (in terms of sorting, refining 
>>> queries, querying by label, etc.). 
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> William (http://wstein.org) 
>>>
>> -- 
>>
> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/02f5020e-7c69-4be3-a277-cf5b47fb635bn%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/d2532c0b-528c-4bfb-a1d6-160cfb3671d5n%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
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 activity.
>

for recent activities there are GitHub tools, probably more suitable for
such a tack.


> 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 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 shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is not
>> possible.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Migration *to* GH is one thing, but as has been pointed out, we should
>> have an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to move
>> from github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a git
>> repo. However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in
>> tickets on trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of
>> immense value as well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial
>> as claimed before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs.
>> >>
>> >> Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility
>> study of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how
>> do cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)?
>> Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus
>> its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have
>> something at least matching that for GH.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part of
>> our github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently
>> resilient against technological problems but a new failure mode is
>> introduced due to their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely
>> event that sagemath on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or
>> malice?) we might not be at their mercy for extracting our valuable
>> history.
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree that it would be valuable to add at least some starting points
>> in this direction.
>> > As a beginning, I have created the section:
>> >
>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#retrieving-data-from-github
>> > to include the link https://docs.github.com/en/rest to GitHub's REST
>> API, which gives access to everything and is extremely well documented.
>>
>> I used this GitHub REST API a lot recently to implement proxying of
>> content from GitHub to CoCalc, and it is indeed *extremely* good.
>>
>> 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.):
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI
>>
>> 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 . In addition GitHub's
>> advanced search capabilities are useful (in terms of sorting, refining
>> queries, querying by label, etc.).
>>
>>
>> --
>> William (http://wstein.org)
>>
> --
> 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/02f5020e-7c69-4be3-a277-cf5b47fb635bn%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/CAAWYfq0NEWJrdZN7wGwNDwVAUS6rsrDRGqJniU%2B%2ByTSaF%3D_oLw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread John H Palmieri 
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 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 shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is not 
> possible.
> >>
> >>
> >> Migration *to* GH is one thing, but as has been pointed out, we should 
> have an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to move 
> from github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a git 
> repo. However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in 
> tickets on trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of 
> immense value as well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial 
> as claimed before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs.
> >>
> >> Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility 
> study of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how 
> do cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)? 
> Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus 
> its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have 
> something at least matching that for GH.
> >>
> >> Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part of 
> our github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently 
> resilient against technological problems but a new failure mode is 
> introduced due to their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely 
> event that sagemath on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or 
> malice?) we might not be at their mercy for extracting our valuable history.
> >
> >
> > I agree that it would be valuable to add at least some starting points 
> in this direction.
> > As a beginning, I have created the section:
> > 
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#retrieving-data-from-github
> > to include the link https://docs.github.com/en/rest to GitHub's REST 
> API, which gives access to everything and is extremely well documented.
>
> I used this GitHub REST API a lot recently to implement proxying of
> content from GitHub to CoCalc, and it is indeed *extremely* good.
>
> 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.):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI
>
> 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 . In addition GitHub's
> advanced search capabilities are useful (in terms of sorting, refining
> queries, querying by label, etc.).
>
>
> -- 
> William (http://wstein.org)
>

-- 
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/02f5020e-7c69-4be3-a277-cf5b47fb635bn%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
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 
>> 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?)
>>
>
This is great question, thanks for the pointer to this GitLab.com URL. I've 
updated 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/Github-vs-Gitlab-vs-trac#in-favor-of-gitlab
 
based on it.

-- 
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/ef7ff4f5-6528-41e5-ae0e-fa49729e1804n%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
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.): 
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI


I've added this 
to 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#retrieving-data-from-github

-- 
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/e76a6fed-2d29-408d-8565-4b5b5a577a03n%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
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 . In addition GitHub's 
> advanced search capabilities are useful (in terms of sorting, refining 
> queries, querying by label, etc.).


I've added this 
to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/Github-vs-Gitlab-vs-trac

-- 
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/10eab99a-5a92-40de-a415-b8357ba6ba7bn%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread William Stein 
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 
>>> shot. Incrementally syncing updates from Trac to existing issues is not 
>>> possible.
>>
>>
>> Migration *to* GH is one thing, but as has been pointed out, we should have 
>> an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to move from 
>> github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a git repo. 
>> However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in tickets on 
>> trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of immense value as 
>> well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial as claimed 
>> before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs.
>>
>> Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility study 
>> of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how do 
>> cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)? 
>> Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus 
>> its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have 
>> something at least matching that for GH.
>>
>> Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part of our 
>> github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently resilient 
>> against technological problems but a new failure mode is introduced due to 
>> their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely event that sagemath 
>> on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or malice?) we might not 
>> be at their mercy for extracting our valuable history.
>
>
> I agree that it would be valuable to add at least some starting points in 
> this direction.
> As a beginning, I have created the section:
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#retrieving-data-from-github
> to include the link https://docs.github.com/en/rest to GitHub's REST API, 
> which gives access to everything and is extremely well documented.

I used this GitHub REST API a lot recently to implement proxying of
content from GitHub to CoCalc, and it is indeed *extremely* good.

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.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI

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 .In addition GitHub's
advanced search capabilities are useful (in terms of sorting, refining
queries, querying by label, etc.).


-- 
William (http://wstein.org)

-- 
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/CACLE5GDMRpKoaDp8af1ToLnaBsL36uHdFWKnJ3mfZMMxxvLuDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Closing the old Sage wiki

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
typo: I have migrated the list of external packages *from* 
https://wiki.sagemath.org/SageMathExternalPackages to  
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31164

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:07:28 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

> An update:
>
> I have migrated the list of external packages to 
> https://wiki.sagemath.org/SageMathExternalPackages to the ticket 
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31164; in the process of this, I have 
> (superficially) reviewed most of the entries and split them between 
> pip-installable / non-pip-installable / defunct packages. Help is very 
> welcome in taking care of the remaining ones that have not been processed 
> yet.
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:45:19 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
>> Let's get rid of the old Sage wiki (https://wiki.sagemath.org/SageWiki).
>>
>> 1) It excludes new and newish developers who do not have the required 
>> legacy trac account but log in to Trac using their GitHub accounts.
>> 2) It has very little non-outdated content (see below) -- it reflects 
>> poorly on the project.
>> 3) We already have another Wiki as part of the Trac server. 
>> https://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/WikiStart
>>
>> Steps done:
>> a) I went through in the last few weeks and reviewed and then deleted 
>> many wildly outdated pages and pages that only duplicated information that 
>> is available in our manuals. 
>> https://wiki.sagemath.org/RecentChanges?max_days=90
>> b) I have migrated https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.6 and 
>> https://wiki.sagemath.org/patchbot (and subpages) to the Trac wiki.
>>
>> To do:
>> c) Migrate some info to our documentation 
>> - see for example https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30500 on IDE & text 
>> editor configuration
>> d) Migrate the rest of the pages to the Trac wiki - 
>> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725 
>> - for example the archive of SageDays activities
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/2839d211-5e02-4e1a-801d-c1f55480958dn%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Closing the old Sage wiki

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
An update:

I have migrated the list of external packages to 
https://wiki.sagemath.org/SageMathExternalPackages to the 
ticket https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31164; in the process of this, I 
have (superficially) reviewed most of the entries and split them between 
pip-installable / non-pip-installable / defunct packages. Help is very 
welcome in taking care of the remaining ones that have not been processed 
yet.

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:45:19 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

> Let's get rid of the old Sage wiki (https://wiki.sagemath.org/SageWiki).
>
> 1) It excludes new and newish developers who do not have the required 
> legacy trac account but log in to Trac using their GitHub accounts.
> 2) It has very little non-outdated content (see below) -- it reflects 
> poorly on the project.
> 3) We already have another Wiki as part of the Trac server. 
> https://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/WikiStart
>
> Steps done:
> a) I went through in the last few weeks and reviewed and then deleted many 
> wildly outdated pages and pages that only duplicated information that is 
> available in our manuals. 
> https://wiki.sagemath.org/RecentChanges?max_days=90
> b) I have migrated https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.6 and 
> https://wiki.sagemath.org/patchbot (and subpages) to the Trac wiki.
>
> To do:
> c) Migrate some info to our documentation 
> - see for example https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30500 on IDE & text 
> editor configuration
> d) Migrate the rest of the pages to the Trac wiki - 
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725 
> - for example the archive of SageDays activities
>
>
>

-- 
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/65195310-d941-4e56-ac74-c910f1efd761n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Please help beta-test the Trac -> GitHub transition guide

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#proposed-workflow-on-github-with-transition-guide-from-trac

Writing this guide was motivated by 

- the proposed migration from Trac to GitHub 
(https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30363), 

but independent from that, the transition guide may also be useful for 
experienced Sage developers who are familiar with Trac but wish to start 
contributing to other projects, including:

(1) Projects on https://github.com/sagemath, including:
  - https://github.com/sagemath/sagetex
  - https://github.com/sagemath/pplpy
  - https://github.com/sagemath/sage-shell-mode
  - https://github.com/sagemath/cysignals
  - https://github.com/sagemath/modular_resolution
  - https://github.com/sagemath/deformation
  - https://github.com/sagemath/p_group_cohomology
  - https://github.com/sagemath/sage-combinat-widgets

(2) Our website:
  - https://github.com/sagemath/website
  - https://github.com/sagemath/publications

(3) External Sage user packages
  - see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31164 for a collection -- the 
overwhelming majority is developed in GitHub repos; and many need help 

(4) Upstream packages (packages that Sage depends on)
  - see https://trac.sagemath.org/#Surveyingthemathematicalsoftwarelandscape

As an exercise for beta-testing the Trac -> GitHub transition guide that is 
accessible to everyone, I would suggest that we collaborate on updating 
​https://github.com/sagemath/publications 
 (add your own publications that 
cite Sage, fix open issues at 
​https://github.com/sagemath/publications/issues 
). There is an opportunity 
for a first interaction with a ​GH Actions check 
 that checks the 
wellformedness of the edited BibTeX entries.


-- 
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/f6f00933-bb9a-4750-bd0f-4a170291629fn%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
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 not 
>> possible.
>>
>
> Migration *to* GH is one thing, but as has been pointed out, we should 
> have an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to move 
> from github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a git 
> repo. However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in 
> tickets on trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of 
> immense value as well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial 
> as claimed before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs.
>
> Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility 
> study of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how 
> do cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)? 
> Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus 
> its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have 
> something at least matching that for GH.
>
> Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part of our 
> github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently resilient 
> against technological problems but a new failure mode is introduced due to 
> their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely event that sagemath 
> on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or malice?) we might 
> not be at their mercy for extracting our valuable history.
>

I agree that it would be valuable to add at least some starting points in 
this direction.
As a beginning, I have created the section:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#retrieving-data-from-github
to include the link https://docs.github.com/en/rest to GitHub's REST API, 
which gives access to everything and is extremely well documented.


 

-- 
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/64de5f3b-1b76-42bd-9181-d5cb2cef96b6n%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread John H Palmieri 
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 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 out, we should 
> have an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to move 
> from github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a git 
> repo. However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in 
> tickets on trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of 
> immense value as well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial 
> as claimed before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs.
>
> Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility 
> study of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how 
> do cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)? 
> Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus 
> its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have 
> something at least matching that for GH.
>
> Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part of our 
> github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently resilient 
> against technological problems but a new failure mode is introduced due to 
> their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely event that sagemath 
> on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or malice?) we might 
> not be at their mercy for extracting our valuable history.
>

-- 
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/6df70728-981a-4e8f-b5d8-7d4259a36507n%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Nils Bruin 
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 out, we should have 
an exit strategy as well, or at least an idea of a roadmap to move from 
github to elsewhere. The code itself is trivial to move: it's a git repo. 
However, as has been shown in the past, the discussions (now in tickets on 
trac, but if moved in issues and PRs) can sometimes be of immense value as 
well. I suppose that if moving from GH to GL is as trivial as claimed 
before, GH must have a way of exporting issues and PRs.

Would someone be able to give an informed assessment or a feasibility study 
of extracting issues and PRs from GH? How searchable are they and how do 
cross-links survive an extraction (also important for trac-to-GH)? 
Presently, trac is fairly searchable due to its own search functions plus 
its general indexing by google's search engine. Hopefully we'd have 
something at least matching that for GH.

Perhaps part of our setup should also be that we "backup" this part of our 
github setup: githubs own infrastructure is of course excellently resilient 
against technological problems but a new failure mode is introduced due to 
their governance and policy: in the extremely unlikely event that sagemath 
on GH would get "locked" due to a misunderstanding (or malice?) we might 
not be at their mercy for extracting our valuable history.

-- 
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/0e2df7b4-3dca-4b1c-b93c-2e893673b687n%40googlegroups.com.

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

2022-09-18 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
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 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).
>

the idea is that what we have on Trac will be moved to GitHub. So the
cleanup may be done there, and we can go straight to (b).




>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAAWYfq0xfKmObZoVVMHJ9jZLf4bR1OwiTdZwEsdYjaz%3Dj8xPmQ%40mail.gmail.com.