+1 from me as well

> Am 18.08.2020 um 16:30 schrieb Matt Sicker <[email protected]>:
> 
> +1 here, especially due to GitHub tooling and apps.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:13 AM Mark Waite <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> +1 from me.
> 
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 6:03:07 AM UTC-6 Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> and I received a PR https://github.com/aheritier/build-flow-plugin/pull/2 
> <https://github.com/aheritier/build-flow-plugin/pull/2>
> 😭
> 
> +1000 for the proposal
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:01 PM Arnaud Héritier <[email protected] <>> wrote:
> ok I missed :( 
> It doesn't make sense to have my repo as primary. I didn't create it and 
> never committed to it. 
> There is probably a bug in GitHub with forks which were created a long time 
> ago
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:58 PM Daniel Beck <[email protected] <>> wrote:
> The repo exists, there's just an additional "jenkinsci/" in the link. I have 
> no idea why the GH API behaves inconsistently there.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:50 PM Arnaud Héritier <[email protected] <>> wrote:
> +1 for the proposed plan
> Something is strange in your export.
> For example I am supposed to host 
> https://github.com/aheritier/build-flow-plugin 
> <https://github.com/aheritier/build-flow-plugin> (origin) which should be 
> forked to https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkinsci/build-flow-plugin 
> <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkinsci/build-flow-plugin> ( doesn't exist)
> We probably had such repo in the past and it was deleted after I forked it 
> but maybe you could exclude from the list the repos when they aren't existing 
> anymore in the jenkinsci side (not sure how many repos could be like this)
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:39 PM Daniel Beck <[email protected] <>> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'd like to propose a cleanup of 'fork' relationships of the repositories in 
> the jenkinsci GitHub organization.
> 
> Background:
> For many years, the plugin hosting process has forked existing repositories. 
> The expectation was always that the new repo in jenkinsci was the canonical 
> 'main' repository, but that wasn't enforced. For the past year or two, we've 
> even asked maintainers to delete their repository after forking unless there 
> were useful PRs and issues in there already, so that the jenkinsci repo 
> became the 'main' repo (with occasional mishaps if someone else had forked 
> before us).
> 
> Some people enjoy the "branding" effect that having the source repository 
> creates. But this comes with downsides: Sometimes GitHub code search doesn't 
> work, depending on the popularity of the repository. Links to create pull 
> requests sometimes don't work quite right, and INFRA-2697 notes that the 
> GitHub CLI cannot really handle networks where a fork is the "main" repo, 
> probably for the same reason. Having a different repo than what we consider 
> canonical as the "root" repository confuses users trying to file pull 
> requests or issues on GitHub. It'll get worse once GitHub adds repo-level 
> discussions[1]. Basically, the more stuff is attached to a repository that 
> isn't trivially cloned/mirrored to forks, the worse it gets.
> 
> In terms of security, GitHub for quite some time did not support security 
> warnings for forks. LGTM.com / GitHub Security Labs still does not recognize 
> forked repositories. Earlier this year a security researcher recently used 
> its CodeQL functionality to identify and submit fixes to pom.xml files 
> referencing plain HTTP Maven repositories, but couldn't do that for forked 
> repos. In many cases, the source repositories are much less active than the 
> repo in jenkinsci, or the maintainers have moved on entirely, making this 
> feature unavailable to (other) current maintainers, or the Jenkins security 
> team.
> 
> The way we create forks is simply not a well-supported use case.
> 
> My proposal therefore is to "unfork" plugin and similar repositories in the 
> jenkinsci organization. Only repositories that clearly are forks (e.g. some 
> libraries not maintained by us) would remain forks.
> 
> After checking with GitHub support, the following options exist:
> 
> 1. It is possible to invert the fork relationship. This requires approval 
> from both repo owners (i.e. jenkinsci and whoever we forked from).
> 2. It is possible to cut the fork relationship. This requires approval from 
> the forked repo owner (i.e. jenkinsci).
> 
> And while it is technically possible to re-attach repos to a network / merge 
> networks, GH support would rather not do that.
> 
> Therefore I propose we implement the following steps:
> 
> 1. We try to contact, wherever possible, whoever we forked from, and ask them 
> to contact GitHub support. I'll grant blanket permission on behalf of 
> jenkinsci and will tell everyone the support ticket number to reference so 
> this goes as smoothly as possible.
> 2. We wait a while while folks ask GH support for an inversion of the fork 
> relationship.
> 3. We ask GitHub support to cut the fork relationship of everything that's 
> left over.
> 
> Additionally, we should change the hosting process to work with repo 
> transfers, or creation of repos without the fork relationship. That can be 
> done at any time though; as even now we don't really want that fork 
> relationship we create to exist.
> 
> To understand the scope of this, I've written a script that periodically 
> updates a list of forked repositories in jenkinsci, you can see the result at 
> https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/publishing/source-code-hosting/forks/ 
> <https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/publishing/source-code-hosting/forks/>
> 
> One potential problem are plugins that are actively maintained outside the 
> jenkinsci organization and only have an outdated fork in jenkinsci that isn't 
> being used. I think it makes sense to ask maintainers to move their activity 
> into jenkinsci (including perhaps a complete repo transfer to retain issues 
> and PRs). If they refuse, rather than cut the fork relationship, we could 
> just delete our unused fork. (While this touches on plugins maintained 
> exclusively outside jenkinsci, I consider that general topic to be a separate 
> conversation. Please keep this thread focused on this proposal.)
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 1: 
> https://github.blog/2020-05-06-new-from-satellite-2020-github-codespaces-github-discussions-securing-code-in-private-repositories-and-more/#discussions
>  
> <https://github.blog/2020-05-06-new-from-satellite-2020-github-codespaces-github-discussions-securing-code-in-private-repositories-and-more/#discussions>
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6D96DA83-2AE0-4C87-92D6-4CCC8DFE1E57%40beckweb.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6D96DA83-2AE0-4C87-92D6-4CCC8DFE1E57%40beckweb.net>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arnaud Héritier
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAFNCU-_vuzGEO_u18SkF43t1vSbZouZm7yq61-m9BCvj3dizMg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAFNCU-_vuzGEO_u18SkF43t1vSbZouZm7yq61-m9BCvj3dizMg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAMo7PtKTB1QCVTd-c1ABxBi3pf%2Bo8w-ODJu1Poq2vWjKX4Ot8g%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAMo7PtKTB1QCVTd-c1ABxBi3pf%2Bo8w-ODJu1Poq2vWjKX4Ot8g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arnaud Héritier
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arnaud Héritier
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/50ad23a4-abe8-4a69-ab09-2419d227e830n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/50ad23a4-abe8-4a69-ab09-2419d227e830n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker
> Senior Software Engineer, CloudBees
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAEot4oz_CHTEH257FqacEOChDxEHTWj0SPOVTbt3%2BKKCSxnj0A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAEot4oz_CHTEH257FqacEOChDxEHTWj0SPOVTbt3%2BKKCSxnj0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/48B64CEC-02A5-4797-95A2-6969F5F28C93%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to