[Important] Gitlab migation plan for Pacman
Hi, Some time ago it was decided to migrate the pacman development from the Mailing List to the Gitlab instance hosted by Arch Linux. The pacman source has been hosted there for a while but the development has strictly been conducted on the Mailing List and this is about to change. https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/ The plan is as follows: 1. Open the patch submission via Gitlab and close the mailing list submission 2. Open the Gitlab issue tracker and close down the flyspry issue tracker 3. Manually migrate bugs from flyspry to Gitlab and close the others. Currently the issue tracker is open on Gitlab, and merge requests have also been enabled for some time. No EOL dates has been set on on patch submission nor flyspry, but I'd encourage any new development to using gitlab instead of the mailing list and flyspry from this point on. I propose we close down Flyspry and patch submission 1st of January 2023. This change also implies decommisioning the Patchwork instance. For this to be done we need to keep track of any unmerged/unreviewed patches from the mailing list. This list has been made and if anything is missing please do reach out. https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues/1 There is also some documentation work that needs to be done to direct users from the Mailing List to Gitlab. Any help updating this documentation is very much appreciated. Cheers, Morten Linderud
Happy new year! I have updated the project descriptions in gitlab and flyspray to reflect where bugs should be opened and patches should be submitted. I do not see an option to prevent new bugs being filed in flyspray. Anything opened there will be closed with a message pointing at gitlab. I have moved some of the flyspray bugs to gitlab, and fixed a bunch that could be done quickly. Help there would be greatly appreciated. Allan On 5/12/22 03:41, Morten Linderud wrote:
We also need doc/submitting-patches.asciidoc to be updated. I would be grateful if someone else wanted to do that... Allan On 1/1/23 13:36, Allan McRae wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 01:36:18PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Happy new year!
Happy new years :)
The pacman project on flyspry has been hidden. It seems like people with previous access to the project can list bugs files there though. However for other users the project is gone. I'm not sure if this is desirable or not. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
On 2/1/23 21:40, Morten Linderud wrote:
I'd guess not... I had set the project as inactive, but reverted this change. A
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 9:36 PM Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
It seems that submitting or commenting on an issue requires an accounts.archlinux.org sso login, which in turn requires two-factor authentication. Seems like a high bar for just submitting or commenting on a bug. Accepting submissions from arbitrary unverified emails is a bit lax, but this seems a bit far in the other direction. In any case, it should probably be explained somewhere for folks who aren't active pacman developers. I'm not sure if there might be a way to make this easier. Perhaps there could be accounts without tfa that would not have access to various more critical operations? Perhaps a forums.archlinux.org account with a verified email could be used? On the plus side, even though the sso page you wind up at says that you must install an authenticator application on a mobile device, that isn't really the case. It seems that you can use any android device such as a tablet or a chromebook. Or, you can use oauthtool from the linux command line, and avoid the need for a separate device. -Jeff
On 3/1/23 16:35, Jeff Norden wrote:
My understanding is that eventually all Arch web logins (including the forums) will be through the Arch SSO. The same will be required to file or comment on Arch Linux package bugs too. Allan
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Jeff Norden
-
Morten Linderud