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.


  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.


  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.


  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.


  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.


  63. jonas’


  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.


  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’


  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.


  92. jonas’

    yet another thing you cannot easily do with github

  93. pep.


  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’


  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’


  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’


  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.


  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’


  123. pep.

    I need to add a remote etc. right?

  124. jonas’


  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.


  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.


  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.


  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.


  150. jonas’


  151. jonas’

    ahhh... meh

  152. lnj has joined

  153. jonas’

    corner cases everywhere :D

  154. jonas’


  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.


  159. pep.

    ok, CI passed for the MR!

  160. jonas’


  161. jonas’

    it also extracted the correct file :)

  162. pep.


  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.


  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’


  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.


  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.


  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’


  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