Hi,
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
will that work for everyone ? Also, some of the docs on the wiki and in the git repo itself will need updating.
- KB
On 20 May 2014 08:57, Karanbir Singh kbsingh@centos.org wrote:
Hi,
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
will that work for everyone ? Also, some of the docs on the wiki and in the git repo itself will need updating.
Makes sense to me and when RH start pushing to git.centos.org rather than the FTP (as per the previous announcements) it'll keep it all in one place.
On 05/20/2014 09:10 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
Makes sense to me and when RH start pushing to git.centos.org http://git.centos.org rather than the FTP (as per the previous announcements) it'll keep it all in one place.
on that front - we should have git hosted rpms online this week at some point, gives us all something to play / trial / build against.
regards
On 5/20/14, 1:57 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi,
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
Seems reasonable to me.
will that work for everyone ? Also, some of the docs on the wiki and in the git repo itself will need updating.
- KB
Karanbir Singh kbsingh@centos.org hat am 20. Mai 2014 um 09:57 geschrieben:
Hi,
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
will that work for everyone ? Also, some of the docs on the wiki and in the git repo itself will need updating.
- KB
Seems fine by me too (given sufficient commit permissions :) ). Also I'll update to relevant docs in the wiki, once it's done.
-- Christoph Galuschka CentOS-QA member | IRC: tigalch
On 20/05/14 09:57, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi,
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
will that work for everyone ? Also, some of the docs on the wiki and in the git repo itself will need updating.
- KB
Well, the reason why we used gitorious as a primary place for people to contribute to those t_functional tests was that gitorious was there , and people could easily create an account, clone , work on their tests, and then create a "merge request" to be integrated back into the t_functional git repo on gitorious *but not* on the main git repo that hosts the real tests for CentOS Automated QA.
Reason was that we could test the tests before deciding to integrate them or not for real QA tests (and after a green light on our jenkins instance http://ci.dev.centos.org)
So what is your real proposal ? Assuming that nobody (except members from the QA team, as it's the flow we used, and that I explained twice this year during CentOS Dojo - see http://people.centos.org/arrfab/Events/CentOS-Dojo-2014/centos-QA-explained....) can push directly to t_functional hosted on git.centos.org.
Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal git repo) ?
On 05/20/2014 12:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal git repo) ?
git.centos.org to be the public visible, but not commitable / forkable repo - for that we use the github.com/CentOS org, to match all the other repos that were working with at the moment.
On 20/05/14 16:11, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/20/2014 12:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal git repo) ?
git.centos.org to be the public visible, but not commitable / forkable repo - for that we use the github.com/CentOS org, to match all the other repos that were working with at the moment.
ok, so basically you meant gitorious -> github ... The reason why we selected gitorious instead of github when we started were the following : * gitorious uses opensource applications (while github doesn't) * it was possible to have a self-hosted gitorious app on our machine if we wanted (but in the mean time we've used gitblit for git.centos.org)
Now, it's true that you can find more people active on github than on gitorious (even if it's easy/free to create an account there). So do we want to reconsider where to host the t_functional git repo ? And so consolidating all our "forkable/contributor-wanted" repos under the github.com/centos umbrella ?
On 05/20/2014 03:30 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 20/05/14 16:11, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/20/2014 12:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal git repo) ?
git.centos.org to be the public visible, but not commitable / forkable repo - for that we use the github.com/CentOS org, to match all the other repos that were working with at the moment.
ok, so basically you meant gitorious -> github ...
and making the production code public, it isnt really in .centos.org public at the moment.
On 20/05/14 16:33, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/20/2014 03:30 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 20/05/14 16:11, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/20/2014 12:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal git repo) ?
git.centos.org to be the public visible, but not commitable / forkable repo - for that we use the github.com/CentOS org, to match all the other repos that were working with at the moment.
ok, so basically you meant gitorious -> github ...
and making the production code public, it isnt really in .centos.org public at the moment.
Yeah, so to recap : * migrating gitorious -> github * migrating "internal-and-not-public" git repo -> git.centos.org
That works for me, but we'd need to then inform people about that change and migrate current ACLs for people with rights to accepts "merge requests" on gitorious to be able to do the same for "merge pull requests" on github.
When do we want to do that ?
On 05/20/2014 03:35 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 20/05/14 16:33, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/20/2014 03:30 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 20/05/14 16:11, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/20/2014 12:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Or do you want to create another git repo and we'd adopt the same "merge" from one to the other (same as we do with gitorious -> internal git repo) ?
git.centos.org to be the public visible, but not commitable / forkable repo - for that we use the github.com/CentOS org, to match all the other repos that were working with at the moment.
ok, so basically you meant gitorious -> github ...
and making the production code public, it isnt really in .centos.org public at the moment.
Yeah, so to recap :
- migrating gitorious -> github
- migrating "internal-and-not-public" git repo -> git.centos.org
That works for me, but we'd need to then inform people about that change and migrate current ACLs for people with rights to accepts "merge requests" on gitorious to be able to do the same for "merge pull requests" on github.
When do we want to do that ?
lets do it now :)
technically, anyone on the QA team should be able to push to git.c.o - so we can have a qateam setup as a 'team' there, and we can just add members.
- KB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/20/2014 07:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
- gitorious uses opensource applications (while github doesn't) *
it was possible to have a self-hosted gitorious app on our machine if we wanted (but in the mean time we've used gitblit for git.centos.org)
I think these are highly compelling reasons to at least continue to use Gitorious in parallel. Despite the extra work, it's a consideration about open source methodology (FLOSS tools to build FLOSS) that is important.
GitHub is increasingly important the way Twitter, G+, and Facebook are - - places where people gather who we want to reach. But I wouldn't want to replace e.g. lists.centos.org or centos.org/forums with G+ or Facebook.
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 08:57:02AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
Hey, was the licensing for t_functional ever cleared up?
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:30:14AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 08:57:02AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
Hey, was the licensing for t_functional ever cleared up?
Ooh. That wasn't off list after all. Well. Same question in public, then. :)
*goes to get coffee*
On 05/20/2014 02:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 08:57:02AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from gitorious.org to git.centos.org
Hey, was the licensing for t_functional ever cleared up?
if it isnt, then we should make sure it does happen. leave it with me and I will come back with clarification
-
Christoph.Galuschka -
Fabian Arrotin -
James Hogarth -
Karanbir Singh -
Karanbir Singh -
Karsten Wade -
Matthew Miller -
Sam Kottler