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 > <matthia...@gmail.com> 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.
