Migrating Sailfish OS git repos to Github

[olf]

@lbt, first of all: Thank you very much for your prompt and exhaustive reply!

@lbt

The main answer here is simply lack of time. The server cost is negligilble in the scheme of things.

That makes sense / is what I assumed.

[…] and we (well, mainly I) pushed to put our (limited) community manpower into the OBS revival.

Also a “thank you” for this decision: IMO it was the right one.

As for the haste; […]

While your arguments are understandable, please let it run a little longer in read-only mode, as other sailors (as you reported) and I (above) are suggesting.

I didn’t look at how the redirects are being done but I admit that I assumed that the gitlab vs github url layout was not similar enough to support reliable rewritten urls

As denoted above: They are for all source code, including branches!

especially when there will be issues

You did not migrate issues.
Hence links will either point to nowhere or a different issue.

and diff urls etc -

Those may be hard.
IMO: never mind, source links are crucial!

I’ll suggest we spend a little time looking at that as I agree it would be useful in the short term (actually @ballock just mentioned this post in our meeting as I’m typing and he is planning on doing some rewrite rules).

I hope this explains some of the reasoning and background.

Thanks a lot, also to @ballock for planning to use rewrite rules instead of redirects.

[lbt]

@olf

While your arguments are understandable, please let it run a little longer in read-only mode, as other sailors (as you reported) and I (above) are suggesting.

With any rewrite/redirect in place the service would be essentially inaccessible after the cutoff date anyway so there’s no real point keeping it running.

In any case my plan was to shut the service down but not decommision it entirely for some time (months).

Then if some issue came to light were a community member had forgotten/lost something it would be trivial to restart the service (for a short period) to provide access to recover data (via oldgit.sfos.org or something)

I hope that makes sense.

[olf]

@lbt

With any rewrite/redirect in place the service would be essentially inaccessible after the cutoff date anyway so there’s no real point keeping it running.

I clearly denoted a reason to keep git.sailfishos.org running for an additional while in the section “Example for this issue” in my original post above: To keep references to issues and merge requests working a little longer. For enabling Jolla employees and others to comprehend the context of issues migrated here (to FSO).

That sure implies to wait with activating the rewrite rules, or to explicitly exclude the URLs of issues and merge requests from being rewritten by the rewrite rules; as they were not migrated, that also makes sense in the long run (even after switching off git.sailfishos.org).
Hence the latter (“rewrite rules, which exclude issues & MRs”) would be the best solution, if that is sufficiently easy to implement (should be, IMO).

[ballock]

I have published the redirect service and you can check what it does and what it does not. It’s git-redir.sailfishos.org - you can test what redirect you get by replacing your git.sailfishos.org host in your browser’s URL field. It should redirect all mer-core repositories (and some other special ones, too), handles paths beneath the repo, so commit and tree references should work, handles query parameters, so cloning from the repositories should work.

Since issues and merge requests don’t map to GitHub, they redirect to the root of this repository in GitHub. This is the right thing to do since the GitLab instance is going to be shut down and it will be impossible to fetch content from it in any way but manually.

The redirect service took me some effort to create, it’s not trivial, but it should do the job. Feel free to test it and report if you find any issues with it.

[olf]

@ballock, thank you for implementing this diligently.
But you call for testing a black box, which makes little sense IMO: Can one review somewhere what you implemented (i.e., as a “white box”)?

BTW,

@ballock

Since issues and merge requests don’t map to GitHub, they redirect to the root of this repository in GitHub. This is the right thing to do since the GitLab instance is going to be shut down and it will be impossible to fetch content from it in any way but manually.

Oh how I love these implicit "No"s from sailors by completely ignoring input or questions from community members.
IMHO an explicit “No, we have decided otherwise and will not do this” is

• clearer and unambiguous
• more polite

[poetaster]

So, as Olf suggests, you’re going to ignore his request to keep the original URLs available and /dev/null them to the root of a github repo?

When?

[poetaster]

Btw. Olf, since you’re being a cipher, please tell me how may I pm you if I wish to discuss coordinating this kind of public discourse?

[schmittlauch]

Another question about Issues, as most discussion had been about migrating existing ones or not:

It looks like most packages on GitHub do not have issues enabled, where is the best place to report base system bugs, issues, or remarks now? The internal bug tracker will stay closed, and merproject’s bugzilla is dead as well.

I am asking that question because I am wondering about where to move my only open git.sailfishos.org issue about sailifishos/policycoreutils. As it has neither been closed for irrelevance nor received any comment, I still feel the urge to keep that remark about an earlier potential mistake of mine open.

[olf]

@schmittlauch, you are late to the party!

According to the schedule set by Jolla, you should save your open issue somewhere ASAP.

For some sub-projects at https://github.com/sailfishos/, the GitHub issue tracker is switched on.
Checked for GitHub - sailfishos/policycoreutils : Bad luck!
Side note: I am trying to convince Jolla to open the GitHub issue tracker for all sub-projects (some reasons denoted there) at https://github.com/sailfishos/.

So your only possibility to keep that issue publicly visible at an appropriate place is the “Bug Reports”-category here at FSO: Bug Reports - Sailfish OS Forum
Side note 2: The main reason why I am asking Jolla to keep git.sailfishos.org running a little longer and to not rewrite URLs to merge requests and issues there to /dev/null, nirvana or anywhere else now, is that I only copied & pasted an abbreviated / consolidated version of my open issues ([1] and [2]) to FSO (but I may have missed to copy something) and omitted context information discussed in merge requests comments there.
But as that request seems to be ignored, do copy your issue and its context entirely!

Happy copying & pasting!

[olf]

@poetaster, this forum (FSO) allows for PMs, so does TMO.
Plus I provide a way to chat with me, if you click on “Contact info” on my TMO user-page.

P.S.: What is “since you’re being a cipher” supposed to mean?
(No, I am not RSA, ECC, AES or ChaCha! )

[poetaster]

Sorry, but when I click on your user name I don’t see any of the usual links to profile/pm, etc. Maybe a forum bug? What I get is:

# olf

**[missing {{voteCount}} value]** Upvotes

This user's public profile is hidden.

On other users i see a message button. So that’s what I meant by cipher.

[olf]

@poetaster

Maybe a forum bug?

Likely, because I have received PMs from other users here at FSO (the last one on 9 July 2021), and have not altered the settings recently.
You may use TMO for PMs instead, that works.

AFAIKS, there are two settings WRT PMs:

1. User Profile → Notifications → Messages → Allow other users to send me personal messages
   This is checked (i.e, on), which is the default.
2. User Profile → Notifications → Users →
   • Ignored
     List is empty
   • Muted
     List is empty
   • Only allow specific users to send me personal messages
     This is unchecked (i.e, off), which is the default.

AFAICS, there is nothing I can do to make PMs working.
Hence you might want to file a bug report.

[deloptes]

I also do not understand - the 3 months match the vacation period and is not enough time to deal with it.
At least for me I had to finish a project for leaving, start another project, move to another country and have vacation in between. So there was no time to look into this item on my todo list.
But anyway … I have the code on my server and can start over with github.
Again I wonder why Jolla does not put the same energy in fixing bugs.

[ballock]

I am sorry to hear not all of you are pleased with the GitHub migration.

I will make it clear: we will not migrate issues nor PRs from the GitLab instance. There will be no permanent links to any archived version of prior issues nor PRs.
The reason is that it takes too much engineer time to migrate them.

The deadline was set to “after September 14th”, and now I can give an exact date. I will replace the GitLab URLs with the redirector service on 7th of October, during business hours.

[deloptes]

@ballock Can someone give instructions/procedures how to proceed with PRs that are left over after 7th of October?

[ballock]

@deloptes Sure. Instructions below. I don’t know my audience, so I’ll try to be as concise as possible, while keeping the details that will let the less experienced git/GitHub people dig in.

1. Go to the new repository URL on GitHub. If you don’t know the URL, you can use your browser to get to the previous URL, it can also be found in your local git checkout. The redirect service should transfer you to the GitHub URL.
2. Fork the repo to your home in GitHub. You need a GitHub account for that, and the “Fork” icon is on right-hand top.
3. Add the GitHub-forked repo as a “git remote” to your local git repository, where you were working on the PR previously. The URL is under the green “Code” button.
4. git push your changes to the git remote that you created.
5. Create a pull request from the created GitHub repository, from the pushed branch. The “New pull request” button is under the “Pull requests” tab.
6. Make sure the base repository, its base, and your repository’s branch is correct.
7. Enter the related PR details, description, etc.
8. Submit.

[deloptes]

@ballock perfectly clear - great and many thanks!

[olf]

@ballock

I am sorry to hear not all of you are pleased with the GitHub migration.

I will make it clear: we will not migrate issues nor PRs from the GitLab instance. There will be no permanent links to any archived version of prior issues nor PRs.
The reason is that it takes too much engineer time to migrate them.

The deadline was set to “after September 14th”, and now I can give an exact date. I will replace the GitLab URLs with the redirector service on 7th of October, during business hours.

Sad to see, that this was too quick for your fellow sailors!
Unfortunately this is what I expected to happen, hence advised against it, but even clearly pointing out the consequences for Jolla did not make a difference.