Planning for the Forgejo distgit migration #3623
Labels
No labels
Closed As
Accepted
Closed As
Duplicate
Closed As
Insufficient data
Closed As
Invalid
Closed As
Rejected
document it
fast track
meeting
next release
nonresponsive maintainer
packager revocation
pending announcement
provenpackager
python 2 exception
self contained change
stalled
system wide change
updates policy exception
vote-in-progress
No milestone
No project
No assignees
9 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
fesco/tickets#3623
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
There was some discussion in the FRCL Matrix room with @decathorpe, @blc, and I about how FESCo should be involved with the Forgejo distgit migration. I was asked to officially bring up the subject, so here's a ticket.
The main idea of the discussion was creating opportunities for more regular, granular communication/feedback between FESCo (and the overall packager community, I think) and the Forge initiative in addition to a high-level Change Proposal for the final migration that other infra migrations have had in the past.
Also, I think we should agree in advance on some soft requirements for the migration so we have the same idea of what the main priorities/blockers are for the migration as the work is ongoing.
I'm very open to ideas about how this should look. To start, I think it makes sense to put this on a FESCo meeting agenda and invite the relevant folks to discuss.
Metadata Update from @gotmax23:
INFO: we will wait to hear from the Forge team and postpone this ticket until next week
(meeting log discussion starts at 17:15:32)
CC: @humaton @ryanlerch
Thanks for opening the ticket and bringing this up. It’s great to get FESCo involved on the distgit/src.fp.o migration. As we wrap up the Pagure.io shutdown, the timing is perfect to start aligning on the next phase.
@humaton is currently working on the requirements, and getting FESCo’s input on the priorities and soft requirements will be incredibly valuable for identifying blockers before development begins.
Any thoughts on the best way to sync up? Most of the team is usually on the matrix channel (although the last week or so has been light on due to Flock and PTO). We also have daily sync-ups and out scrum meetings on google meet.
For reference, here is the full team working on this phase:
👋 Thanks for the thorough response!
That sounds perfect. We can definitely provide feedback on the requirements/priorities once @humaton is done working on them.
Got it. When do these meetings happen? Would it be possible for a representative or representatives of the team to come to a FESCo meeting for opening discussion? FESCo meetings are currently every Tuesday at 18:00 Europe/London (currently 17:00 UTC) on Matrix chat, and we can add this topic to the agenda which is sent out ahead of time. After that, it'd be good to have a channel for regular communication/checking in, whether that's something asynchronous1, a FESCo->Forge liaison, and/or a recurring FESCo meeting agenda item.
which is easier with FESCo and the Forge team as a whole being spread across ~7 timezones :) ↩︎
These are the "special" things that I know of which are implemented in our current setup and are important for enforcing policy and/or standard packager or releng workflows.
rpms,flatpaks,tests, etc.). Will each group be duplicated as a separate team in each Forgejo org?packager,provenpackager, or another SIG that is synced to dist-git, they should immediately be removed from the corresponding group/team in dist-git so they can't still push to repositories via token or SSH key. For Pagure dist git, syncing group deletions is currently handled by a Toddler.collaboratoraccess for epel branch access? Is there an analogue to this in Forgejo? (I am personally not a fan of having maintainers only for specific branches, anyways, but current policies do endorse this.)Integrations
These integrations with other services are also important to the packager workflow. I believe the CI features are maintained by the Packit team, and we should coordinate with that team to make sure those integrations are adapted to work with the Forgejo-based dist-git before the migration.
+1 to all above, plus one thing I have been thinking about: The permission system in forgejo allows "admin" type users to do a lot of settings changes to repositories that are definitely not desirable for a dist-git setup:
Might it make sense to not give full "admin" permissions on dist-git repos to regular packagers at all? I.e. only give them "member" type access to their own packages, and (if possible?) permissions to add / remove other "member"s access to the package repo.
Most likely the forgejo codebase for dist-git will have to be another fork, since it's not flexible enough to support our needs as-is.
I also forgot to mention too -- there is a staging instance set up already:
https://http-dist-git.apps.ocp.stg.fedoraproject.org/explore/repos
note that this has no dist-git specific patches as yet, but when it was made the 40K or so packages (repos) were imported from pagure dist git.
Do we know what the source of the syntax highlighting code is? It looks like it needs updating for new syntax constructions.
If there's going to be any discussion/meeting related to forge migration, can you please invite me and @lecris ? A lot is related to Packit and Fedora dist-git CI so would be good to be kept in the loop... Thanks!
@lachmanfrantisek, thanks for your comment. I had it on my list to reach out to the Packit team so happy you are in the loop now! I just updated #3623 (comment) to add an Integrations section. Does that look correct to you? You and @lecris are also of course invited to the meeting. I can ping you once it's on the agenda.
CC @humaton @lachmanfrantisek @lecris
This ticket is tagged with
meeting, so it is planned to be discussed at the next meeting on Tuesday, July 14th at 18:00 Europe/London (currently 17:00 UTC) in https://matrix.to/#/#meeting:fedoraproject.org.Not sure if the meeting would be to schedule some meeting or discuss the actual topics.
I will be at a conference, but I will try to at least be semi-present
@gotmax23 wrote in #3623 (comment):
Yes, looks ok, nailed the specifics of what is affected and needs patching. Another thing that was brought to my attention is the need to patch bodhi as well.
@ryanlerch wrote in #3623 (comment):
Thanks, would probably need access to some repos to mock a PR activity. Also interested to see how the "admin" packager access would look in there.
Since @lachmanfrantisek is on PTO this week, I will attend in his stead.
also going forward I’ll probably drive it on the Packit’s side, so Frantisek doesn’t have so much on his plate
lecris wrote in #3623 (comment):
I have added Bodhi to the list of Integrations. Thanks for pointing that out.
There is also this investigation done by the ARC team https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dist-git-move/index.html#
This was discussed in last meeting (meeting log). Thanks to humaton, mfocko, and lecris for joining!
There was also some discussion about how to best handle ongoing communication between FESCo, the community, and the Forge team about the distgit migration effort. We did not reach any definitive conclusion there.