Hi Jonas, Thanks for all of the effort that you're putting into this. A concern that I have with the shared gitlab/github solution is that it has a lot of moving parts, a lot of dependencies, and a lot of places where things can go wrong. Complexity of the implementation increases (to save complexity in the editoring process, which is a worthy cause). I'd like us to consider if the implementation that we're going for will be maintainable in the future, after the architects of the implementation move on to greener pastures.
Regards, Guus On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:59, Jonas Schäfer <jo...@wielicki.name> 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 > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
