Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>> Is there still interest in moving over to Sourcehut for emacs>>> development?>>>> My understanding is that the answer is yes. AFAIK, no final decision>> has yet been taken, but it seems like the consensus is more or less that>> sourcehut is the most likely candidate to have what we need within some>> reasonable time-frame.>>>> Good to hear. I think it would be stupid to decide this without trying> it properly first anyway.>>>> I'm planning to look into this myself a little during the holidays, but>>> not sure how much time I realistically can spend on this, so therefore>>> this mail. Possibly it may be useful if someone other than me wishes to>>> tackle this over the holidays? In general they are pretty responsive>>> over at #sr.ht, so they might be willing to help out a little.>>>> I would personally start with setting up a sourcehut instance with a>> mirror of the Emacs source code. This would allow you to start>> experimenting with it to see how it works and what is missing. In this>> work, I would specifically compare the sourcehot workflow to what we>> have now. If you could make the instance publicly accessible, other>> interested parties could help with this work more easily.>>>> Workflow-wise I believe it already is established that sourcehut> supports most if not all aspects of the emacs development workflow,> modulo the patch-rendering issue when patches are sent as attachments.> One of the biggest improvements would be to set up builds on patch> submission, running tests etc. All of this works properly in Sourcehut.>>> Preferably any gotchas when installing should be noted down somewhere>> (e.g. sent to emacs-devel).>>>> Next, I would start looking into those things that are still missing.>> For starters, they would need to be listed and it should be ensured that>> there are good feature requests on the sourcehut issue tracker. If the>> sourcehut developers are willing to implement those things then great,>> otherwise it would be obviously be very useful if someone would>> volunteer to start working on those things.>>>> Actually, I think that running Sourcehut as a local instance wouldn't> really be necessary for the evaluation, because it is the same code that> is running on sr.ht. Apart from the fiddly bits with self hosting, the> workflow should be the same. I'd encourage people on this list getting> their own user there and trying it out, as I think many already have.> Specifically, emacs-devel would want to use the `meta`, `lists`, `git`,> `todo` and `builds` subprojects, that is all apart from the `hg` one.
I wonder if it would make sense to have one of the maintainers sign up
there and start a "pretend" official Emacs repo. They could start a
mailing list alongside it that we could play with, and who knows, maybe
that would eventually become the "real" official sr.ht repo.
Eric
Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:>>>> Preferably any gotchas when installing should be noted down somewhere>>> (e.g. sent to emacs-devel).>>>>>> Next, I would start looking into those things that are still missing.>>> For starters, they would need to be listed and it should be ensured that>>> there are good feature requests on the sourcehut issue tracker. If the>>> sourcehut developers are willing to implement those things then great,>>> otherwise it would be obviously be very useful if someone would>>> volunteer to start working on those things.>>>>>>> Actually, I think that running Sourcehut as a local instance wouldn't>> really be necessary for the evaluation, because it is the same code that>> is running on sr.ht. Apart from the fiddly bits with self hosting, the>> workflow should be the same. I'd encourage people on this list getting>> their own user there and trying it out, as I think many already have.>> Specifically, emacs-devel would want to use the `meta`, `lists`, `git`,>> `todo` and `builds` subprojects, that is all apart from the `hg` one.>> I wonder if it would make sense to have one of the maintainers sign up> there and start a "pretend" official Emacs repo. They could start a> mailing list alongside it that we could play with, and who knows, maybe> that would eventually become the "real" official sr.ht repo.>> Eric
So that would be something like git.sr.ht/~eliz/emacs or
git.sr.ht/~lars/emacs? This makes me wonder how "hard coded" the user
names are in the sourcehut code base. Assuming the GNU project would
host its sourcehut instance on the domain git.gnu.org, srht.gnu.org,
source.gnu.org, or whatever, would it still be possible to remove the
"~..." username part? (I know this is as minor of an issue as it gets,
it's just curiosity).
Until then, it seems that the username "~gnu" is not taken. Maybe
someone more entitled than me could mirror a few repositories over there
for testing purposes?
--
Philip Kaludercic
>> So that would be something like git.sr.ht/~eliz/emacs or> git.sr.ht/~lars/emacs? This makes me wonder how "hard coded" the user> names are in the sourcehut code base. Assuming the GNU project would> host its sourcehut instance on the domain git.gnu.org, srht.gnu.org,> source.gnu.org, or whatever, would it still be possible to remove the> "~..." username part? (I know this is as minor of an issue as it gets,> it's just curiosity).>> Until then, it seems that the username "~gnu" is not taken. Maybe> someone more entitled than me could mirror a few repositories over there> for testing purposes?>
See my other mail just sent. ~emacs is owned by me as for now, unless
~gnu is preferred :)
Theo
On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 21:24 +0000, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:> > > Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:> > > > > > Preferably any gotchas when installing should be noted down> > > > somewhere> > > > (e.g. sent to emacs-devel).> > > > > > > > Next, I would start looking into those things that are still> > > > missing.> > > > For starters, they would need to be listed and it should be> > > > ensured that> > > > there are good feature requests on the sourcehut issue> > > > tracker. If the> > > > sourcehut developers are willing to implement those things> > > > then great,> > > > otherwise it would be obviously be very useful if someone> > > > would> > > > volunteer to start working on those things.> > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think that running Sourcehut as a local instance> > > wouldn't> > > really be necessary for the evaluation, because it is the same> > > code that> > > is running on sr.ht. Apart from the fiddly bits with self> > > hosting, the> > > workflow should be the same. I'd encourage people on this list> > > getting> > > their own user there and trying it out, as I think many already> > > have.> > > Specifically, emacs-devel would want to use the `meta`, `lists`,> > > `git`,> > > `todo` and `builds` subprojects, that is all apart from the `hg`> > > one.> > > > I wonder if it would make sense to have one of the maintainers> > sign up> > there and start a "pretend" official Emacs repo. They could start> > a> > mailing list alongside it that we could play with, and who knows,> > maybe> > that would eventually become the "real" official sr.ht repo.> > > > Eric> > So that would be something like git.sr.ht/~eliz/emacs or> git.sr.ht/~lars/emacs? This makes me wonder how "hard coded" the> user> names are in the sourcehut code base. Assuming the GNU project> would> host its sourcehut instance on the domain git.gnu.org, srht.gnu.org,> source.gnu.org, or whatever, would it still be possible to remove> the> "~..." username part? (I know this is as minor of an issue as it> gets,> it's just curiosity).> > Until then, it seems that the username "~gnu" is not taken. Maybe> someone more entitled than me could mirror a few repositories over> there> for testing purposes?>
organizations on sourcehut are still a work in progress. Drew has
mentioned a few times that if you setup a work-around for the lack of
orgs now (e.g. a user named gnu, emacs, etc.) there will be a
migration path once the work on orgs is done. so i think the
transition from ~user to ^org is either not very important or will be
handled as support for organizations is deployed.
https://sourcehut.org/alpha-details/https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CC0L8LGIM0C2I.3O209D1TSO6M3%40homura%3E
Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>> So that would be something like git.sr.ht/~eliz/emacs or>> git.sr.ht/~lars/emacs? This makes me wonder how "hard coded" the user>> names are in the sourcehut code base. Assuming the GNU project would>> host its sourcehut instance on the domain git.gnu.org, srht.gnu.org,>> source.gnu.org, or whatever, would it still be possible to remove the>> "~..." username part? (I know this is as minor of an issue as it gets,>> it's just curiosity).>>>> Until then, it seems that the username "~gnu" is not taken. Maybe>> someone more entitled than me could mirror a few repositories over there>> for testing purposes?>>>> See my other mail just sent. ~emacs is owned by me as for now, unless> ~gnu is preferred :)
My understanding is that this would be a practical demonstration right?
(I believe the consensus last time was that the service should be hosted
on FSF servers.) If that is the case, I think that if you could set up a
few example repositories (emacs, elpa, nongnu) on git., import a few
mailing list archives on lists. and make up some issues on todo. then
the discussion could become more concrete and the path forward more
clear.
--
Philip Kaludercic
Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
> I wonder if it would make sense to have one of the maintainers sign up> there and start a "pretend" official Emacs repo. They could start a> mailing list alongside it that we could play with,
Does it have to be one of the maintainers, or could anyone do it?
> and who knows, maybe> that would eventually become the "real" official sr.ht repo.
AFAIK, it is GNU policy that we need to self-host this infrastructure.
On 12/21/21 13:42 PM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:>>> I wonder if it would make sense to have one of the maintainers sign up>> there and start a "pretend" official Emacs repo. They could start a>> mailing list alongside it that we could play with,>> Does it have to be one of the maintainers, or could anyone do it?>>> and who knows, maybe>> that would eventually become the "real" official sr.ht repo.>> AFAIK, it is GNU policy that we need to self-host this infrastructure.
I think that answers the first question -- as Philip notes, we would
eventually have to self-host, so in theory anyone could own this
account. Doesn't mean we can't fix real bugs with it, though...
john muhl <email@johnmuhl.mx> writes:
> On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 21:24 +0000, Philip Kaludercic wrote:>> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:>> >> So that would be something like git.sr.ht/~eliz/emacs or>> git.sr.ht/~lars/emacs? This makes me wonder how "hard coded" the>> user>> names are in the sourcehut code base. Assuming the GNU project>> would>> host its sourcehut instance on the domain git.gnu.org, srht.gnu.org,>> source.gnu.org, or whatever, would it still be possible to remove>> the>> "~..." username part? (I know this is as minor of an issue as it>> gets,>> it's just curiosity).>> >> Until then, it seems that the username "~gnu" is not taken. Maybe>> someone more entitled than me could mirror a few repositories over>> there>> for testing purposes?>> >> organizations on sourcehut are still a work in progress. Drew has> mentioned a few times that if you setup a work-around for the lack of> orgs now (e.g. a user named gnu, emacs, etc.) there will be a> migration path once the work on orgs is done. so i think the> transition from ~user to ^org is either not very important or will be> handled as support for organizations is deployed.
This isn't exactly what I meant, maybe to rephrase it in terms of
organisations: Can you have a single-organisation instance, where the
git repository for Emacs wouldn't be "whatever.org/~gnu/emacs",
"whatever.org/^gnu/emacs" but just "whatever.org/emacs"?
> https://sourcehut.org/alpha-details/> https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CC0L8LGIM0C2I.3O209D1TSO6M3%40homura%3E
--
Philip Kaludercic
Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:>>>>>>> So that would be something like git.sr.ht/~eliz/emacs or>>> git.sr.ht/~lars/emacs? This makes me wonder how "hard coded" the user>>> names are in the sourcehut code base. Assuming the GNU project would>>> host its sourcehut instance on the domain git.gnu.org, srht.gnu.org,>>> source.gnu.org, or whatever, would it still be possible to remove the>>> "~..." username part? (I know this is as minor of an issue as it gets,>>> it's just curiosity).>>>>>> Until then, it seems that the username "~gnu" is not taken. Maybe>>> someone more entitled than me could mirror a few repositories over there>>> for testing purposes?>>>>>>> See my other mail just sent. ~emacs is owned by me as for now, unless>> ~gnu is preferred :)>> My understanding is that this would be a practical demonstration right?> (I believe the consensus last time was that the service should be hosted> on FSF servers.) If that is the case, I think that if you could set up a> few example repositories (emacs, elpa, nongnu) on git., import a few> mailing list archives on lists. and make up some issues on todo. then> the discussion could become more concrete and the path forward more> clear.>
I'll set this up asap, and see where we will go from this.
And yes, this will be for demotstration purposes for the time being.
> -- > Philip Kaludercic
>> I'll set this up asap, and see where we will go from this.>> And yes, this will be for demotstration purposes for the time being.>
Ok, now there at least is something to look at there:
Repo: https://git.sr.ht/~emacs/emacs
Todo: https://todo.sr.ht/~emacs/emacs
List: https://lists.sr.ht/~emacs/emacs-devel
Feel free to post things and to look at it. We can figure out how to
hook in builds and proper mirroring sometime later, if someone still is
interested in this.
Theo