Hi, let's try to get a consensus on a few decisions.
Proposition 1: Let's take this opportunity to migrate: - code hosting (currently hg/bitbucket), - bug tracker (currently bugzilla/self-hosted), - pull/merge requests (currently bitbucket), - code review (currently a mix of bugzilla/bitbucket), - continuous integration (currently a mix of cron job, gitlab runners, etc. without ability to test PR) to a *single* and *stable* "tool" hosted and maintained by a reliable third-party. Here "tool" is either github or gitlab, and thus we also have to switch from hg to git. -> Do we agree on this proposition? If YES, then all it remains to do is to choose between github or gitlab (and then hack some migration scripts!). github main pro: - most users/contributors already have an account gitlab main pros: - more freedom/independence - gitlab CI rocks: - this make it a real all-in-one solution - thanks to gitlab-runners anybody can easily share computing resources. I can myself dedicate two very powerful machines without VM overhead compiling Eigen's unit tests within a few minutes. That's a key feature if we want to automatically test PRs. - part of the work is already done (e.g., gitlab-runners, bugzilla to gitlab) gitlab main cons: - the search engine for issues does not search within the comments yet. This is a very serious limitation, hopefully it'll be resolved soon, but the current patch proposal is exhibiting very serious performance issues with no clear solution: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/24458 You can have a look at an initial attempt of migration of our bugzilla to gitlab there: https://gitlab.inria.fr/guenneba/eigen-bzmigration-test2/issues Bug's ID are preserved, and it's only missing hash/link conversions from hg/bitbucket to whatever we switch for code hosting. The migration script should not be too difficult to adapt to github if github ends up as the winner. If we go with gitlab, then we have the choice of the gitlab instance, e.g.: - gitlab.com with gold feature for free - gitlab.inria.fr (it is running the community edition) Gael On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:54 PM Christoph Hertzberg < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Eigen users and contributers! > > As some may have noticed, bitbucket/atlassian is "sunsetting" its > mercurial support: > > https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket > > If they stick to their timeline, we will have to migrate until June 1st, > 2020. That means we still have time, but if we do nothing, things will > break ... > > > Converting the repository itself to git should not be a bigger issue -- > and if we do this we could as well migrate to a more mainstream provider > (i.e., github). > > I think the main problems for migration are: > a) Migrating open pull-requests (for historical reasons, the > closed/merged ones should probably be archived as well) > b) Fixing internal links inside commit messages ("grafted from ...", > "fixes error introduced in commit ...") > c) Fixing external links to the repository. Most notably, any links > from our bugtracker will eventually fail (even if we stayed with > bitbucket, the hashes won't match). I doubt that we could set up any > automatic forwarding for that. > d) Any third-party which relies on our main repository will need to > change as well (not directly "our" problem, but we need to give a > reasonable amount of time for everyone to migrate to whatever will be > our future official repository). > > Smaller issues (relatively easy to fix or not as important): > e) Change links from our wiki (to downloads) > f) Change URLs for automated doxygen generation and for unit-tests > g) Automatic links from the repository to our bugtracker (currently > "Bug X" automatically links to > http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=X) > h) Change hashes in bench/perf_monitoring/changesets.txt > > I probably missed a few things ... > > > I see essentially three options: > 1. Migrate to another mercurial provider > 2. Convert to git, stay at bitbucket > 3. Convert to git, migrate to another provider > > Honestly, I see no good reason for option 2. And the only real reason I > see for option 1 would be that it safes a lot of hassle with b) and h) > -- also perhaps it would simplify c) (e.g., we could easily crawl > through our bugzilla-database and just replace some URLs). > > > Any opinions on this? Preferences for how to proceed, or other > alternatives? > Does anyone have experience with migrating from hg to git? Or migrating > between providers? Especially, also dealing with the issues listed above. > Does anyone see issues I forgot? > > > Cheers, > Christoph > > > > > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Christoph Hertzberg > > Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftsstelle: > DFKI GmbH > Robotics Innovation Center > Robert-Hooke-Straße 5 > 28359 Bremen, Germany > > Postadresse der Hauptgeschäftsstelle Standort Bremen: > DFKI GmbH > Robotics Innovation Center > Robert-Hooke-Straße 1 > 28359 Bremen, Germany > > Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4021 > Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-0 > E-Mail: [email protected] > > Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH > Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany > > Geschäftsführung: > Prof. Dr. Jana Koehler (Vorsitzende) > Dr. Walter Olthoff > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: > Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes > Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
