OpenWrt and GitHub

[Paul Spooren]

On 6/6/21 3:04 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 10:20:49AM -1000, Paul Spooren wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After a request by some developers in #openwrt-devel I added a Signed-off-by
>> check (DOC) to our GitHub presence, since it's one of the most common formal
>> issues. This is a handy piece of CI to waste less human time in reviews.
>>
>> Speaking of more CI, it's been two nearly two years since Lynxis and mine
>> idea to bundle up things to a self hosted GitLab instance rather than using
>> a wild mix of tooling[1]. Since then some things happened, but the overall
>> the situation is the same as two years ago. Nobody seems keen to setup and
>> maintain a GitLab instance for OpenWrt.
>>
>> Should we stall that plan and reevaluate if a (temporarily) gitlab.com
>> hosted instance is the better way to proceed?
> In that case I strongly prefer github.com over gitlab.com.
> Despite github.com being owned by Microsoft, they haven't yet actively
> done anything harming users or projects. They sure do collect a lot of
> metadata, which I'd rather not want to give them...
> gitlab.com has activaly destroyed gitorious.org only weeks after
> acquiring the service. All projects were inaccessible from one day to
> another, wiki and pages were NEVER restored, repositories were restored
> more than a year later (!) by archive.org.
> For me it is very clear that I do not want to depend or work with
> anyone who has shown this kind of attitude in the past (and never even
> publicly apopogized for it).
>
> If you haven't heard about that story, please read up and inform
> yourselves, and feel free to ask me (I was mainly using gitorious.org
> by the time it was been acquired and destroyed by gitlab.com)
ACK.
>
>> Next to CI, the issue tracking is a bit of a mess. In theory everything
>> should go to bugs.openwrt.org, but since it doesn't support a lot of bells
>> and whistles users distribute their issues to the forum and GitHub commit
>> comments[2].
>>
>> Could it make sense to use the GitHub issues rather than Flyspray? Different
>> from Flyspray the GitHub issues support an API, CLI and also a way to export
>> issues, unlike Flyspray where it needs HTML parsing or SQL plumbing.
>>
>> I'm not a fan to freely promote a commercial service but since nobody is
>> excited about doing extra administrative work on a GitLab instance, why not?
>> We relay on commercial entities anyway (e.g. Hetzner) and migrating a VM
>> from provider A to B might just be as annoying churn as plumping "old
>> service API" to "new service API".
>>
>> tl;dr: Use GitHub issues instead Flyspray? Use GitLab.com with some CI? Do
>> nothing?
> ... or just have someone else run a gitlab instance for us?
Sure, anyone in mind? I think we could ask FOSShost(.org) to help us 
with a hosted instance.
> And what about sourcehut? Wouldn't that be a good option as well?
 From my understanding it's still within an Alpha phase, so we shouldn't 
migrate over there just yet.
>
>
>> Best,
>> Paul
>>
>> [1]: https://openwrt.org/meetings/hamburg2019/start#defragmentation_of_code_and_tools
>> [2]: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/2cd1a108290f48fd35373f91056c05277c289687
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openwrt-adm mailing list
>> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm
>
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm