XSF Editor Team - 2020-06-14


  1. bear has left
  2. bear has joined
  3. winfried has left
  4. winfried has joined
  5. winfried has left
  6. winfried has joined
  7. bear has left
  8. Tobi has joined
  9. bear has joined
  10. lnj has joined
  11. winfried has left
  12. winfried has joined
  13. winfried has left
  14. winfried has joined
  15. winfried has left
  16. winfried has joined
  17. winfried has left
  18. winfried has joined
  19. winfried has left
  20. winfried has joined
  21. winfried has left
  22. winfried has joined
  23. winfried has left
  24. winfried has joined
  25. winfried has left
  26. winfried has joined
  27. winfried has left
  28. winfried has joined
  29. pep. jonas’, do you prefer me to merge things now or just approve them and you'll merge later?
  30. pep. Have you tested announcements btw?
  31. jonas’ which things?
  32. pep. PRs
  33. jonas’ yes, I tested announcements, but only to my private email
  34. jonas’ (see the linked MR)
  35. jonas’ would you work on editor stuff right now?
  36. pep. Sure
  37. jonas’ I see
  38. jonas’ so the things on gitlab.com are ready to be used
  39. jonas’ right now, emails only go to my private mail address, but that can easily be changed
  40. jonas’ if we dare
  41. jonas’ (oh, and if we get the new sender address subscribed to the mailing list first :D)
  42. jonas’ pep., if you want, you can play a round of "how does this new gitlab thing feel" under my supervision now
  43. jonas’ otherwise I’ll pick a PR which can be merged to play through the pipelines with real stuff myself
  44. Zash has joined
  45. Zash Hey, based on https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-May/037495.html https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-June/037552.html it looks like SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability should be XEP'd but was forgotten about.
  46. pep. What does the sender address look like btw
  47. pep. oh have already merged gitlab stuff :p
  48. pep. I just realized
  49. pep. Not like it impacts the current build anyway :)
  50. jonas’ which current build?
  51. jonas’ Zash, I have it in the spreadsheet, but it hasn’t been tuesday yet ;)
  52. pep. travis/dockerhub?
  53. jonas’ though today will be special and I’ll do editor stuff despite it not being tuesday
  54. jonas’ pep., did you do editor things today?
  55. pep. no
  56. jonas’ ok, so it doesn’t matter indeed
  57. jonas’ I’ll switch places and then we can coordinate, there are a few things in the pipeline
  58. jonas’ I’ll switch places and then we can coordinate, there are a few things in the queue which need to be processed, and it’d be good if we could do that together now-ish to iron out the issues
  59. Zash Oh, Georgs mail wasn't that long ago. Don't stress on my account. :)
  60. jonas’ Zash, I need to test things anyways :)
  61. jonas’ pep., so I’ll play the game with the protoxep and then I’ll show you the (temporary) ropes for a PR
  62. pep. k
  63. jonas’ https://gitlab.com/xsf/xeps/-/merge_requests/4
  64. jonas’ I think this is going to be my favourite feature: https://xsf.gitlab.io/-/xeps/-/jobs/594352928/artifacts/rendered-changes/xep-0440.html
  65. pep. nice indeed
  66. jonas’ new sender address is xep-editor-pipeline@zombofant.net temporarily. If we continue to use this flow, I’ll see that we set up a proper email sender account on atlas so that we can send from editor@xmpp.org
  67. pep. yeah
  68. pep. This is also supposed to generate an archive directly?
  69. pep. Ah no, mr..
  70. jonas’ not a full archive
  71. jonas’ just the one with the changed stuff, which is also exposed in the web UI
  72. jonas’ okay, provisional email stuff is sorted out
  73. jonas’ I’m hitting the green button now
  74. jonas’ man I’m excited
  75. pep. I read pack@main as pac man :x
  76. jonas’ :D
  77. jonas’ I’m so looking forward to completely removing the docker stuff in favour of build artifacts one day
  78. jonas’ in contrast to github, you can get a publicly readable link to the latest artifact of a job on a branch trivially :)
  79. jonas’ one thing we still need to do manually is tagging
  80. jonas’ but I’ve got a tool for that in the pipeline, too
  81. jonas’ it does work mostly already, but it still has some issues with some corner cases
  82. jonas’ ah well, one mail was generated incorrectly
  83. jonas’ I guess some problems were to be expected if you don’t clear the runner caches after messing with stuff *a lot*
  84. jonas’ but everything else seems to have worked flawlessly
  85. jonas’ let me put the docker image up
  86. jonas’ ah, the docker builder was stuck. meh.
  87. pep. So we'll need to give commit rights to xep-attic to the CI also?
  88. jonas’ it already has that
  89. jonas’ xep-attic was updated correctly
  90. jonas’ via a Deploy Key (which grants +w to exactly one repository); private key is in a protected CI variable
  91. pep. k
  92. jonas’ yet another thing you cannot easily do with github
  93. pep. yeah
  94. jonas’ https://gitlab.com/xsf/xep-attic/-/commit/4741034c2874583a7678caecc51418d29c87229e?view=parallel it has a bit of noise in it because of the caches I should’ve cleared, but nothing fatal
  95. jonas’ attic is updated on eos2 now, too
  96. jonas’ this is looking good
  97. pep. yeah looks good :)
  98. jonas’ pep., wanna handle https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/949?
  99. pep. That is..?
  100. jonas’ workflow would be to create a MR for that branch on github (by pulling it locally and pushing it to a feature branch on the gitlab repo), checking it looks OK and then hitting the green button
  101. jonas’ huh
  102. pep. I'm kinda lost with what to do wrt validation in that PR
  103. jonas’ sorry, I got confused
  104. jonas’ I still am to an extent
  105. jonas’ need to read up on council logs, I have it as "to merge" in my list
  106. pep. I guess it's blocked on adding the possibility to include validation to registrar stuff
  107. Zash Wasn't the vote on the version prior to the validation changes?
  108. jonas’ https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/960 this would be a good next candidate
  109. pep. Zash, it was yes
  110. jonas’ workflow would be to create a MR for that branch on github (by pulling it locally and pushing it to a feature branch on the gitlab repo), adding a commit which adds a revision block, checking it looks OK and then hitting the green button
  111. pep. doing now
  112. jonas’ :+1:
  113. pep. Maybe I'll get my own fork on gitlab for the next try :p
  114. pep. Why is there no pipeline?
  115. pep. Ah because eh
  116. pep. not rebased
  117. jonas’ right
  118. jonas’ when you rebase, you’ll also have to rebase the branch on the github side to make github see that it’s going to be merged
  119. pep. https://gitlab.com/xsf/xeps/-/merge_requests/5
  120. jonas’ (needs to happen before the push to master on the github side happens; only cosmetics though)
  121. pep. Can I push stuff to flow's branch?
  122. jonas’ yes
  123. pep. I need to add a remote etc. right?
  124. jonas’ yes
  125. jonas’ flow is particularly nasty, because his xeps fork isn’t called xeps
  126. jonas’ you’ll need git@github.com:flowdalic/xeps-xsf
  127. pep. yeah that's fine :p
  128. pep. I actually had him as a remote already
  129. jonas’ pep., needs revision block
  130. pep. ah fail
  131. jonas’ also I do wonder why it also rendered '440
  132. pep. Is that why there's also 0440 in the rendered changes?
  133. pep. right
  134. jonas’ ah, I understand why, hah
  135. jonas’ nothing to worry about
  136. jonas’ it bases the files to include there on diff-tree against main, but in this case, your branch doesn’t contain xep-0440 yet, so it notices that it "changed"
  137. jonas’ (and it gets the built version from the build cache)
  138. pep. k
  139. jonas’ something to fix to reduce confusion, but nothing to worry about.
  140. jonas’ can you wait a sec?
  141. jonas’ I’d like to patch the tooling life-ish
  142. jonas’ I’d like to patch the tooling live-ish
  143. pep. k
  144. pep. hmm I just pushed the revision block. I'll rebase when you're done
  145. lnj has left
  146. jonas’ I pushed fixes
  147. jonas’ (to your branch :-x)
  148. jonas’ lets see what that does
  149. pep. k
  150. jonas’ huh
  151. jonas’ ahhh... meh
  152. lnj has joined
  153. jonas’ corner cases everywhere :D
  154. jonas’ fixed
  155. jonas’ pep., ^
  156. pep. "50" being a magic number that's just likely to work most of the time? :p
  157. jonas’ it’s also the depth used by the gitlab runners by default
  158. pep. k
  159. pep. ok, CI passed for the MR!
  160. jonas’ yupp
  161. jonas’ it also extracted the correct file :)
  162. pep. yeah
  163. jonas’ so you can hit the button from my side
  164. pep. from your side?
  165. jonas’ uh.. germanism probably
  166. jonas’ "I am ok with you hitting the green button now"
  167. pep. done
  168. jonas’ watches the pipelines
  169. pep. If this works out I hope we switch quickly so we don't "have to" maintain both in parallel
  170. jonas’ sure
  171. jonas’ if board approves, I intend to do a hard switch in the next two weeks
  172. pep. What about current PRs? rebase/push to gitlab? Grabbing authorship for all of them?
  173. pep. Also I'm sure some are gonna grump saying "I don't like gitlab blah blah"
  174. jonas’ I intend to do a clean re-import of the repo once we agree on switching
  175. jonas’ pep., oh, I have an easy reply for them
  176. jonas’ "Are you going to maintain the build process on github in the same quality? Then do that and we stay there."
  177. pep. Or .. "github is more popular, we're jeopardizing the XSF's popularity!!"
  178. jonas’ "you can send MRs via email without account"
  179. pep. "email is an ancient tech!!" :P
  180. jonas’ (maybe, I haven’t checket the "without account" part)
  181. pep. I don't think you can
  182. jonas’ this is perfect, everything went exactly as expected
  183. pep. It's certainly possible to use your github account to connect to gitlab though
  184. jonas’ ah yes, you need an account
  185. jonas’ and yes, you can sign in with github
  186. jonas’ (images on eos2 pulled)
  187. jonas’ I’m going to do the tagging for you and synced to github
  188. pep. hmm, we'll have to push your CI change to flow's branch on github
  189. jonas’ do we?
  190. jonas’ nope, all good
  191. pep. k
  192. jonas’ the only requirement is that the commit ID of the head of the branch shows up on master
  193. jonas’ doesn’t matter if it’s via a merge commit or followed by other commits
  194. jonas’ all set
  195. jonas’ I like this flow
  196. jonas’ I’m going to compose an email to editor@ and standards@ now
  197. pep. k
  198. jonas’ mail sent
  199. jonas’ enough pondering
  200. jonas’ it is also amazing that the gitlab ci runners are nearly twice as fast as docker hub, even for the non-incremental builds
  201. jonas’ (and if we still felt them to be too slow because of a shared resource, we could host our own e.g. on eos)
  202. larma has joined
  203. pep. Is it possible in github to prevent a repo from accepting PRs?
  204. pep. It's only possible to disable issues right?
  205. pep. We can add templates for github etc. I guess saying "New location: .."
  206. winfried has left
  207. winfried has joined
  208. winfried has left
  209. winfried has joined
  210. winfried has left
  211. winfried has joined
  212. jonas’ pep., you can archive a repository
  213. jonas’ which is what I intend to do
  214. winfried has left
  215. winfried has joined
  216. pep. I wonder if we won't be asked to compromise and mirror instead :/
  217. pep. not to inconviene lazy people using github, or sth :p
  218. winfried has left
  219. winfried has joined
  220. jonas’ would be an option
  221. jonas’ sam also suggests to use GitLab CI on a GitHub repo
  222. jonas’ should be possible, never tried it
  223. jonas’ wonder how terrible the integration is going t obe
  224. jonas’ should test that with a non-xsf repo some time next week
  225. pep. It is possible at all? does github integrate that?
  226. winfried has left
  227. winfried has joined
  228. pep. We can surely mirror a github repo, but then we lose the CI for MRs
  229. pep. We can also mirror a github repo, but then we lose the CI for MRs
  230. jonas’ pep., gitlab offers "CI/CD for External Repo" when you create a new project
  231. jonas’ need to test that
  232. winfried has left
  233. winfried has joined
  234. pep. Ah, ok
  235. pep. something something webhook I guess
  236. pep. well just like other CI solutions..
  237. jonas’ yes
  238. jonas’ but we might still gain the docker registry + artifacts + cahing
  239. jonas’ but we might still gain the docker registry + artifacts + caching
  240. jonas’ but we might still gain the docker registry + artifacts + caching + hidden CI variables + …
  241. winfried has left
  242. winfried has joined
  243. lnj has left
  244. winfried has left
  245. winfried has joined
  246. lnj has joined
  247. winfried has left
  248. winfried has joined
  249. lnj has left
  250. winfried has left
  251. winfried has joined
  252. winfried has left
  253. winfried has joined
  254. winfried has left
  255. winfried has joined
  256. winfried has left
  257. winfried has joined
  258. lnj has joined
  259. winfried has left
  260. winfried has joined
  261. lnj has left
  262. lnj has joined
  263. winfried has left
  264. winfried has joined
  265. Kev has left
  266. winfried has left
  267. winfried has joined
  268. winfried has left
  269. winfried has joined
  270. winfried has left
  271. winfried has joined
  272. winfried has left
  273. winfried has joined
  274. flow has left
  275. lnj has left
  276. lnj has joined
  277. winfried has left
  278. winfried has joined
  279. winfried has left
  280. winfried has joined
  281. lnj has left
  282. Tobi has left
  283. Tobi has joined
  284. bear has left
  285. Tobi has left
  286. Zash has left
  287. bear has joined