[sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Dear Sage developers, As announced in a parallel thread, we are voting to move Sage development from Trac to Github. Several of us have created a wiki page attempting to summarize arguments in favor of each system, and this thread ca

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Do we require everyone willing to vote to do so on sage-devel, or it could be done elsewhere (not every contributor to Sage or its dependencies/packages is there) ? On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:23 PM David Roe wrote: > > Dear Sage developers, > As announced in a parallel thread, we are voting to mov

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Sage has a tradition of public voting, but I'm fine if people want to email me separately with their vote and I can forward it along. David On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 3:22 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Do we require everyone willing to vote to do so on sage-devel, or it > could be done elsewhere (not

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I did not chime in in the long thread leading to the vote, but I am quite used to working with Gitlab (hosted at my university) and would be more comfortable with a Gitlab solution because I have the impression that it gives us more freedom (we currently run our own patchbots, so running our o

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

> personally I still prefer Trac, but the bus factor argument and recruitment of new contributors are more important +1 -- 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 ema

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Not sure where to ask this - here? On the GH page documenting the transition and new workflow proposal, I don't see a way to have multiple AUTHORs in the way we usually kept track of it. Note that often there were people who were authors who didn't show up on a specific commit, but which the

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

This is Github's documentation for doing it, but it's pretty annoying: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/committing-changes-to-your-project/creating-and-editing-commits/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors Maybe we could create some automation to add these kinds of comments to the merge

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:51:24 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > On the GH page documenting the transition and new workflow proposal, I > don't see a way to have multiple AUTHORs in the way we usually kept track > of it. I agree, this still needs to be specified. (Related: https://groups.g

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I think part of a solution could be PR templates, which add structure to the PR description (= the first comment). That could be a way of adding Authors (and Reviewers) to a PR. https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/about-issue-and-pul

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

> I think part of a solution could be PR templates, which add structure to > the PR description (= the first comment). That could be a way of adding > Authors (and Reviewers) to a PR. If there's a way to (lightly) enforce that via some kind of bot, that sounds very reasonable. On another n

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 4:57:36 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > On another note, I realize that the comment I made 6 years ago after >> Volker's comment is still relevant: >> > "There's also the non-trivial (though not blocker, probably) issue that > zillions of links to trac.sagemath.or

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 9:15 AM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 4:57:36 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: >>> >>> On another note, I realize that the comment I made 6 years ago after >>> Volker's comment is still relevant: >> >> "There's also the non-trivial (though not block

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On 24/09/2022 14:57, kcrisman wrote: I think part of a solution could be PR templates, which add structure to the PR description (= the first comment). That could be a way of adding Authors (and Reviewers) to a

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 9:27:46 AM UTC-7 mathzeta2 wrote: > Is it possible to choose the issue numbers in GH when making a migration? > Then, setting a redirect of the form " > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/$TICKET_NUMBER -> > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/$TICKET_NUMBER"

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I think I'm missing part of this. What is the actual path to switching to GitHub? I've seen pages describing how individual development tasks will be converted from trac to GitHub, but what does the overall transition look like? - Do we just say, before November 1 (or whenever) we're doing ever

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 5:15:11 PM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote: > I think I'm missing part of this. What is the actual path to switching to > GitHub? I've seen pages describing how individual development tasks will be > converted from trac to GitHub, but what does the overall transiti

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I've added this to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#conversion-of-trac-tickets-and-the-trac-wiki-to-github now On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 5:46:15 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 5:15:11 PM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wr

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Will the changeover also mark Sage 10.0? Is there a vision for what Sage 10.0 means? On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 8:48:15 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > I've added this to > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b#conversion-of-trac-tickets-and-the-trac-wiki

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I don't think it's useful to reflect this change in a version number. I think it can just happen in the middle of the 9.8 release cycle. On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 8:21:41 PM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote: > Will the changeover also mark Sage 10.0? Is there a vision for what Sage > 10.0 mea

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 12:21:41 PM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: > Is there a vision for what Sage 10.0 means? Sage X :) -- 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 i

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 3:17:03 PM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 12:21:41 PM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: > >> Is there a vision for what Sage 10.0 means? > > Yes. See the headline of https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29705 -- You received this message be

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Le samedi 24 septembre 2022 à 13:57:36 UTC+2, kcrisman a écrit : > > On another note, I realize that the comment I made 6 years ago after > Volker's comment is still relevant: > "There's also the non-trivial (though not blocker, probably) issue that > zillions of links to trac.sagemath.org wou

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

2. Convert all tickets to Issues in a new repo. (This preserves the ticket > numbers as Issue numbers.) > Would it make sense to convert tickets with branches directly to pull-requests? Since most of them probably already contain quite a bit of discussion about the implementation, which you w

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:26 AM Tobias Diez wrote: > > > >> 2. Convert all tickets to Issues in a new repo. (This preserves the ticket >> numbers as Issue numbers.) > > > Would it make sense to convert tickets with branches directly to > pull-requests? only open tickets. Closed tickets are ser

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:35:04 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > >> How long do we want to have Trac still exist, but be read-only? >> Obviously we wouldn't take it down right away, but presumably eventually >> we would need to do so. >> > > As I said earlier, discussions on Tr

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Matthias Koeppe schrieb am Samstag, 24. September 2022 um 19:09:46 UTC+2: On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 9:27:46 AM UTC-7 mathzeta2 wrote: > >> Is it possible to choose the issue numbers in GH when making a migration? >> Then, setting a redirect of the form " >> https://trac.sagemath.org/ti

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

One more question: The current plan is to use the sagetrac-mirror repo as the base for creating PRs but also to archived it. However, if I'm not mistaken, that makes all branches in sagetrac-mirror readonly and thus one cannot continue working on existing PRs by pushing to the corresponding bra

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:29 AM Tobias Diez wrote: > > One more question: The current plan is to use the sagetrac-mirror repo as the > base for creating PRs but also to archived it. However, if I'm not mistaken, > that makes all branches in sagetrac-mirror readonly and thus one cannot > contin

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Yes, the target repo of these PRs will be the (new) sagemath/sage, but the source will be sagemath/sagetrac-mirror, right? So in order to update the pull request one needs to push the changes to sagemath/sagetrac-mirror (it is not possible to update a PR by pushing to /refs/pull/xyz, because thi

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022, 14:08 Tobias Diez, wrote: > Yes, the target repo of these PRs will be the (new) sagemath/sage, but the > source will be sagemath/sagetrac-mirror, right? Hmm, I might have missed something - what is the need to have 2 repos here, if 1 is sufficient? Any fork of sagemath/sa

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 1:02:06 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote: > Furthermore, it isn’t still clear to me how dependencies between PRs will > be visible (like in the Trac dependencies field). > This is an important point. See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30363#comment:91 > ​

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote: > One more question: The current plan is to use the sagetrac-mirror repo as > the base for creating PRs but also to archived it. However, if I'm not > mistaken, that makes all branches in sagetrac-mirror readonly and

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I've created https://github.com/sagemath/sage-gh-templates-sandbox for playing with Issue and PR templates. On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:50:05 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > I think part of a solution could be PR templates, which add structure to > the PR description (= the first comm

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

The first proposed Issue template can be seen here: https://github.com/sagemath/sage-gh-templates-sandbox/issues/new/choose See https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/configuring-issue-templates-for-your-repository On Tuesday, Septe

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Imagine a currently open ticket with a linked branch. How is this going to be migrated? My assumption has been that this will create a PR from sagemath/sagetrac-mirror/branch into sagemath/sage. If thats indeed the plan (which I find is a g

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022, 21:12 Tobias Diez, wrote: > Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Imagine a currently > open ticket with a linked branch. How is this going to be migrated? My > assumption has been that this will create a PR from > sagemath/sagetrac-mirror/branch into sagemat

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote: > Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Imagine a currently > open ticket with a linked branch. How is this going to be migrated? My > assumption has been that this will create a PR from > sagemath/s

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

Okay, fair enough! Then it's a bit more work to get tickets into PRs (for devs) but maybe its a good idea to start with a clean slate. On Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 22:31:57 UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2022, 21:12 Tobias Diez, wrote: > >> Just to make sure we are talki

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

A fair point made: an "exit strategy" from Github should exist and should ideally take into account that this exit may need to happen at a time where github is no longer able/willing to cooperate in this exit: in other words, we should ideally *back up* our issues and pull-request histories. The

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

You would think that this would be a solved problem: others in the open source community must have be in the practice of backing up their GitHub info. On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > A fair point made: an "exit strategy" from Github should exist and shoul

Re: [sage-devel] DISCUSS: move Sage development to Github

I would say that in general, projects are not concerned that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper situation with the Linux kernel from 20 years ago would be repeated by Microsoft/GitHub. On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:26:22 PM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote: > You would think that th