This seems like a lot of extra maintenance burden and a very complicated solution (and this is why editors get burnt out and we go through them, the whole process was already somewhat complicated). If Docker doesn't actually make things easier for us, maybe we shouldn't use it.
Alternatively, if we do still want to use Docker, why not just use whatever GitHub's CI is or one of the many CI solutions that can work with GitHub without setting up lots of new infrastructure, repos, syncing, etc? (ie. Travis, Circle CI, Drone, etc. there are tons of them and many of them are free but also designed to work with GitHub) —Sam On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, at 12:58, Jonas Schäfer wrote: > Hi again, > > Thanks Sam and Kevin for your valuable feedback. I think what you say > definitely has merit. > > In light of that, we came up with a hybrid solution which may be > better or worse. We need input on that. > > - We keep the GitHub xeps (and registar) repositories. > - We create mirror repositories on GitLab. > - We configure a two-way sync between the GitLab and GitHub > repositories for the main branch, but not for pull/merge requests or > issues or non-main branches. > - We disable the issue tracker on GitHub (or GitLab) so that there’s > only one place to report and track issues. > - MRs/PRs will be handled by editors on both platforms (but still with > less work than before), with equal priority > - MRs on GitLab will gain additional features (like HTML-rendered > diffs etc.) for users; this is because we cannot trivially add those > features to GitHub due to lack of support, but they’re cheap to add > over there. > - In the mid-term, we move xep-*.xml into a subdirectory so that the > README of the repositories is more accessible and can be augmented > with an "end user" guide more easily. > - xep-attic moves completely over to GitLab for simplicity. > - Thanks to the two-way sync, we can use the advanced GitLab CI > features to do the automagic. > > Assume that we’ll update all relevant documentation to state that "XEP > contributions are accepted on GitLab, GitHub and via email to > edi...@xmpp.org". We’ll also update the repository descriptions to > indicate that they are mirrors of each other. > > We would still have to sort out a few legal bits (e.g. around the > CLA/IPR stuff) as well as actually test if this plan is workable on a > technical level in practice. Before we do that work, we’d like to hear > from the (rightfully!) cautious voices about this approach. > > Again, thank you very much for your feedback. > > kind regards, Jonas > > > P.S.: Consider the timeline from the previous email void. We don’t > want to rush ahead of the community, even though that will > further delay the recovery of the registry. A few weeks won’t > matter on this, and we don’t want a half- baked solution which > does more harm than good. > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list Info: > https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: Standards- > unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ > > Attachments: > * signature.asc -- Sam Whited _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
