[VOTE] Use GitHub issues instead of bugs.openwrt.org
Rich Brown
richb.hanover at gmail.com
Fri Jan 28 10:09:38 PST 2022
Hi Fernando,
> On Jan 28, 2022, at 9:19 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rich
>
> The fact that it is a well-known and used system is always a good point to take in consideration but it is not all.
> There are things that can be compromised and others never which are those that involves principles. And yes that sometimes has a cost and that's what needs to be looked at in detail.
>
> If the cost is still higher but not prohibitive than it still may be worth. And it doesn't seem to be the case for GitHub alternative options, not necessarily self-hosted ones.
>
> I often see people that are used with something they consider 'the only option' because in his/her view it is the best technical option. But if the person looks more in deep it is not really a big deal to use another tool that does almost as much as the preferred technical option does and you keep up and strong all those principles that made you take that decision and gives you contribution to send a message to those responsible for have been neglecting some points that are not negotiable for you.
> If we simply accept to overcome certain things that we consider important we send a message in the opposite way to those people that everything is going well and nothing has to change. Refusal to use is a honest and correct way to send this correct message.
>
> And to be honest the cost for this case doesn't seem to any significantly higher if anything.
>
> Kind regards
> Fernando
Once again, I thank someone for their thoughtful response.
My point is that each of us evaluates the strengths and downsides of the various options and chooses. In my case, I did vote for Github, although it is not a strong preference, and I will acceded to the majority vote.
The original call for vote holds the decision open until 9 Feb 2022. In any event, we'll know the answer shortly thereafter.
Best regards,
Rich
>
> On 28/01/2022 10:55, Rich Brown wrote:
>> Dear Sam,
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2022, at 8:26 PM, Sam Kuper <sampablokuper at posteo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Rich,
>>>
>>> I often find myself agreeing with your posts, but I feel some
>>> fact-checking is needed on this one. I hope that's OK.
>> Thank you for the respectful note. (And, YES! That's the point of these discussions - to make strong arguments for all sides of an issue.)
>>
>> You point out reasons to be concerned about using Github. And I realize my analogy is imperfect.
>>
>> The question before the group is whether we want to switch to Github (a well-known system, with all its known flaws and potential problems down the road) or spend developer time investigating, implementing, testing (and overcoming the unknown flaws of) alternate systems.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 03:01:33PM -0500, Rich Brown wrote:
>>>> We all realize that we have to stop driving cars, long term, for the
>>>> health of the planet.
>>> Reducing CO2E emissions and other forms of pollution is more important
>>> than the means by which it is achieved.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Most of us have chosen not to change our livelihoods to focus on
>>>> decreasing energy use.
>>> I really, really hope you are mistaken about that...[1]
>>>
>>>
>>>> We could...
>>>>
>>>> - divert energies of the OpenWrt core team to move to/develop an
>>>> open-source solution, AND find the team members to maintain it
>>>> long-term
>>>>
>>>> -OR-
>>>>
>>>> - adopt a well-known, well-supported commercial package that does
>>>> (most of) what we need today, even [though] it might (in the future)
>>>> do something we don't like
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> (Hasn't Microsoft *already* done enough objectionable things?[2])
>>>
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> - adopt an existing *hosted* free software solution (SourceHut or
>>> Codeberg, etc), which gives the best of both worlds?
>>>
>>> (And perhaps divert a portion of OpenWRT donations to the host of
>>> that service, to help ensure its long-term viability. And perhaps
>>> encourage other Free Software projects we engage with to do the same
>>> thing, for the same reason.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> At some point in the future, things might "go south" so that we want
>>>> to move away from Github.
>>> GitHub has already "gone south".[2]
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's the time to divert developer efforts toward moving Git repos
>>>> and bug reports and everything.
>>> Migrating bug reports to GitHub would require *more* developer effort
>>> than migrating them to SourceHut or Codeberg.[3]
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the meantime, we can be productive using the (very good) tools on
>>>> Github.
>>> GitHub's tools are - far from being "very good" - literally useless for
>>> anyone connecting via IPv6[4] and for some other people besides.[5]
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]: From a pure energy perspective:
>>>
>>> "By 2050, global energy use needs to be as low as 27 gigajoules (GJ)
>>> of final energy per person to reach the aspirations of the Paris
>>> Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C without relying on
>>> speculative future technologies, according to the Intergovernmental
>>> Panel on Climate Change.
>>>
>>> That means ... affluent countries like the UK (81 GJ per person) or
>>> Spain (77 GJ per person) need to reduce their average energy use by
>>> as much as 65%, France (95 GJ per person) by more than 70%, and the
>>> most energy-hungry countries like the USA (204 GJ per person) or
>>> Canada (232 GJ per person) need to cut by as much as 90%."
>>>
>>> - University of Leeds. "Securing decent living standards for all
>>> while reducing global energy use", 5 Jul 2021.
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210629191733.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> From CO2E, public health, and tax burden perspectives (re: housing
>>> rather than transport, but the situation is parallel):
>>>
>>> "About one-third of the UK's carbon emissions - and ... about the
>>> same throughout Europe - is caused by the domestic sector ... by
>>> energy use in dwellings.
>>>
>>> [From] a carbon and an energy point of view, it's crucial [to]
>>> upgrade [existing buildings] to deep retrofit standards ... 80%
>>> carbon reduction ... by 2050. That's in the UK Climate Change Act.
>>>
>>> [Co-benefits of energy efficiency upgrades include] improved thermal
>>> comfort... [The UK] has 4.5m households in fuel poverty because it
>>> costs so much to heat these dwellings... It affects their health ...
>>> asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney desease and
>>> mental [illness]... [For] each £1 [not] spent on keeping homes
>>> warm, the [National Health Service effectively loses an additional
>>> £0.42].
>>>
>>> [Across the EU, domestic energy efficiency retrofits would avoid]
>>> €80bn-€150bn of [otherwise unnecessary public expenditure on power
>>> generation and distrubution infrastructure].
>>>
>>> [Going back to the UK], we need to upgrade about 1 dwelling every
>>> minute of the day over the next 35 years to achieve [climate change
>>> mitigation commitments]."
>>>
>>> - Dr Sofie Pelsmakers, University of Sheffield, "Necessity of
>>> Housing Retrofit", 9 Nov 2016. https://youtu.be/s-1bDhFDg-8
>>>
>>>
>>> From oceanographic, atmospheric, biodiversity and econmic perspectives:
>>>
>>> "[Our research, published in] Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, ...
>>> shows that the Earth broke yet another heat record last year... The
>>> measurements ... spread across the globe, paint a clear picture: the
>>> Earth is warming, humans are the culprit, and the warming will
>>> continue indefinitely until we collectively take action to reduce
>>> greenhouse gas emissions.
>>>
>>> We used measurements from the oceans because ... more than 90% of
>>> global warming heat ends up in the oceans...
>>>
>>> [This] has tremendous consequences to society and biodiversity... As
>>> oceans warm, they threaten sea life and the many food chains that
>>> originate in the sea. Warmer ocean waters make storms more severe.
>>> Cyclones and hurricanes become more powerful; rains fall harder,
>>> which increases flooding; storms surges are more dangerous; and sea
>>> levels rise (one of the major causes of rising sea levels is the
>>> expansion of water as it heats).
>>>
>>> How much did the world's oceans warm in 2021 compared with the
>>> previous year? Well, our data shows that oceans heated by about 14
>>> zettajoules (a zettajoule is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of
>>> energy)... This is the equivalent of ... seven Hiroshima atomic
>>> bombs detonating each second, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
>>>
>>> [There has been a] clear, persistent rise over the past three to
>>> four decades [attributable] to human emissions of industrial
>>> pollution and greenhouse gases...
>>>
>>> My new year's resolution is to help the planet cool down...
>>> Collectively, we certainly have the technology to reduce greenhouse
>>> gases..."
>>>
>>> - Prof John Abraham, University of St Thomas. "We study ocean
>>> temperatures. The Earth just broke a heat increase record." 11
>>> Jan 2022. https://gu.com/p/k92bg
>>>
>>>
>>> [2]:
>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2022-January/002192.html
>>>
>>>
>>> [3]:
>>>
>>>>> issue numbering on GitHub might not remain coordinated with the
>>>>> issue numbering on bugs.openwrt.org . For instance, there might
>>>>> end up being two bug reports with the same number.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be like the ambiguity of "#4206", which could
>>>>> currently ... refer to either
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.openwrt.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=4206
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/4206
>>>>>
>>>>> but worse.
>>>> Yes that's indeed a _flaw_ ...
>>> Allowing bug reports via GitHub is going to create even more
>>> auto-link ambiguity/breakage.
>>>
>>> *Migration* of bug reports to SourceHut or Codeberg, on the other
>>> hand, allows existing internal links (within bugs.openwrt.org) to be
>>> straightforwardly transformed into internal links at the chosen host
>>> (e.g. either todo.sr.ht/~openwrt/openwrt or
>>> codeberg.org/openwrt/openwrt/issues ). That isn't possible with
>>> GitHub, because the existing PRs on OpenWRT's GitHub repo will cause
>>> collisions, as with #4206 above.
>>>
>>>> Sourcehut requires users to post the full address which seems the
>>>> [...] It's not possible to disable PRs on GitHub and a massive
>>>> chunk of contributions come via the GitHub, I'd estimate more than
>>>> from the mailing list at this point. [...]
>>> This leaves OpenWRT with a headache: how to outsource issue-hosting,
>>> without all those GitHub PRs causing some link-breakage in the
>>> process?
>>>
>>> As I say, your best option there is probably *migration* of bug
>>> reports to SourceHut or Codeberg...
>>>
>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2022-January/037736.html
>>>
>>>
>>> [4]: https://github.com/github/feedback/discussions/10539
>>>
>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2021-June/002017.html
>>>
>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2022-January/002170.html
>>>
>>> [5]:
>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2022-January/037546.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>> Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?
>>>
>>> () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
>>> /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm
More information about the openwrt-adm
mailing list