Re: GitLab status update

[Carlos Soriano <csoriano gnome org>]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net> wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 09:33 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Issues of the infra are here
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/Infrastructure/issues

Thanks. If that's supposed to be the place where to plans/look up tasks
related to the migration (e.g. the data migration script), you may want
to include that link in future emails. Or link to it from
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/Comments

Hm I would use the wiki at https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/Migration, and we point to bugs in https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/Infrastructure/issues or to the migration script, as it's already the case.

 

> and our wiki for migration steps and limitations is on
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/Migration
> that I try to update with steps and a small guide for users I'm doing.

Where to find a general timeline for the migration and all migration
steps broken into milestones? The link offers technical info
specifically for maintainers who own repos it seems...

There is no timeline, we want to be flexible and not force any time for such a big thing.

Are you looking for the plan that was written in https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2017-June/msg00010.html and you want that to be written in the wiki?

That sounds like a good idea.

 

Do those short bullet points under "limitations" have a corresponding
link to a task in an issue tracker (with more info if someone wanted to
fix those)? Are they hard blockers for a test migration of guinea pig
projects? Are they hard blockers for full migration of all projects? Or
are they "we won't stop data migration because of these issues"?

Not really, it's something that it's being worked on. We definitely can file a bug in case someone wants to comment on those.

They are not hard blockers for the pilot program.

They are blockers for the full migration.

Let me clarify that in the wiki.

 

What are the next steps and when for Nautilus?
Now I have to look up Nautilus issues in two disconnected places.

I forgot to mention this, indeed. I'll write a blog post soon with the announcement and plan, so this feedback is good.

The plan is to not migrate bugs from Bugzilla, but rather keep interacting in Bugzilla with the bugs already reported there, and new bugs will happen in GitLab. We expect this to benefit the way bugs are going to be manage, without dragging all the bugs that were not triagged in Bugzilla.

In case we find this is a problem we have the script to migrate bugs, however better to play in the safe side since doing the opposite wouldn't be reversible.

> What partially private emails?

That was my interpretation of "feel free to contact me". As planning
docs feel blurry, my interpretation is hopefully totally wrong. :)

Quoting myself "feel free contact me or reply here to this email." where I'm offering both options. Not sure why I shouldn't offer myself to be contacted in a private way, if that's what someone wants.

 

andre

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:42 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > As always, if you have any question, feel free contact me or reply
> > > here to this email.
> >
> > I'm puzzled that planning and managing all aspects and issues of such a
> > complex migration seems not to be organized in some public task tracker
> > (a central place to see and discuss specific topics) but via (partially
> > private) emails to one single person.
> >
> > I am writing this as I realize I have no clue where to point Alex in
> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2017-September/msg00015.html
> >
> > andre
--
Andre Klapper  |  ak-47 gmx net
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/