<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:23
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-10-29)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:24
Meeting started at 2025-10-29 18:00:23 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:25
The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-10-29)'
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:31
!meetingname epel
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:31
!topic aloha
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:32
The Meeting Name is now epel
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:01:18
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:19
Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
<@elguero:fedora.im>
18:01:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:49
Michael Young (elguero)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:08
morning
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:02:28
hello
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:02:43
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:02:45
Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:08
Morning nirik
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:03:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:21
Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:31
Hi Robby Callicotte Michael L. Young Diego Herrera and Jonathan Wright
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:03:36
!hi
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:37
Hello Stephen J Smoogen
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:38
Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:02
Hi Carl George
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:28
I'm glad we have people here this week, we have several things marked as meeting on the issues.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:42
!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:42
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:42
!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:42
!link https://pagure.io/epel/pull-requests?status=Open&tags=meeting
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:07
I'm going to start with the newest one ...
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:06:07
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:09
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:21
!epel 355
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:22
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:22
**epel #355** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/355):**Transition from Pagure to Forgejo instance**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:22
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:22
● **Opened:** a day ago by dherrera
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:22
● **Last Updated:** a day ago
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:30
Hi Michel Lind UTC
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:41
Diego Herrera: Did you want to step us through this one?
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:07:38
yes :) that's the idea
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:07:51
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:07:52
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:02
Hi Davide Cavalca
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:08:08
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:08:09
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:34
Hi Neil Hanlon
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:09:08
well, we (me and carl) have been testing the new forgejo instance, and at least I think that it's in a state where we could start the migration sooner rather than later
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:09:54
wanted to get some input on the steering opinion on this one, to see if we should start with this process
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:10:44
If I'm reading it correct, the biggest thing we need to decide is if we put everything into /epel/epel/ or we split it to /epel/docs/ and /epel/esc/
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:11:19
Will old issues/tickets get moved over or will they be lost?
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:11:35
they will be moved
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:11:38
i think the last time we talked about this, we were leaning towards migrating pagure.io/epel to forge.fpo/epel/docs as a starting point, then consider a separate epel/steering repo later
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:12:19
Is there anything wrong with keeping the paths the same as from pagure?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:12:19
Great, then I'd like to see the transition also depend on having some sane 301 redirects in place from old to new (both main URLs/common entry points) and individual historical issues/tickets.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:12:23
I think splitting docs makes sense.
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:12:25
I think PRs are the only thing that gets lost
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:50
If we did the docs first, would the issues stay where they are until we create another repo for the issues?
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:13:16
I would also like to see this, but I suspect it'd be contingent on shutting down pagure.io? Unless it's possible to somehow hack redirects into the current deployment
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:13:58
Redirects can be done at the webserver level, specific to EPEL, at least from a technical perspective. There may be contributing factors I'm unaware of that would render this difficult that someone else may be aware of.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:14:18
https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo-deployment
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:14:18
this is a great suggestion to file as an issue in this repo, where the forgejo team can look into it (and i think they already have that on their mind)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:14:18
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:14:32
I am against redirects
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:14:38
One point of procedure: Forgejo lets you manage projects (kanban style) at the Org level, so it's possible to have issues from multiple repos on the same project
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:14:46
at least until everything is well moved.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:15:05
because we may want to look at something in the old place, or whatever.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:15:24
so the migration is really more of a copy, everything stays in the old place as-is. when me and diego moved from codeberg, we archived the old repo. i'm not sure if pagure has the ability to archive repos or not.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:15:51
it doesn't. :(
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:16:01
boo!!
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:16:32
do we have an idea how long the migration would take?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:40
me and diego are already doing that, we switched from epel/releng boards to epel boards so that way if we work out of docs issues in the future we can have them on the boards.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:40
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/-/projects
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:40
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/releng/projects?state=closed&q=
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:40
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:17:14
are org level issues/projects owned by the org, or owned by a repo under the org?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:17:14
IMO that doesn't justify the poor UX of missing redirects. Old could easily be moved to an `old.` subdomain or similar - at least once the full migration to forgejo is complete.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:18:00
well, it depends I guess.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:18:28
I really don't like setting up redirects for each migration... it's a big hassle. we did it from trac and it was a nightmare.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:18:34
I'm only concerned that folks may open issues in pagure after we've moved over to forjo
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:18:38
issues are all repo level, the only property that can be org level is the "projects" (boards)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:18:50
any project with private tickets should not have redirects if they ever want to move those later
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:19:01
can we at least put in some kind of banner up that the project moved?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:19:05
I agree it's a headache, but very important for UX. In this case it's about preventing confusion and helping users and potential contributors find waht they're actually looking for.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:21
surely
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:19:42
pagure doesn't support archival, so I'm not sure what avenues we have to make the old repos read only and prevent confusion
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:20:01
you can set the issue tracker read only
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:20:10
you can set the issue tracker read only on pagure projects
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:20:11
h1 in the readme that says DEPRECATED -
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:20:24
h1 in the readme that says DEPRECATED - MIGRATED TO <new url>
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:21:16
perhaps someone can come up with a more automated way to do redirects for projects that want them
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:21:30
Bash oneliner, anyone? :p
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:21:44
I don't think tags are moved... but I could be wrong on that
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:21:44
https://codeberg.org/fedora/epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:21:44
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:21:44
just as a reference point, here is what we did for our old codeberg repo (archived and subtitle about new location)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:21:51
unfortunately not really applicable to pagure
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:22:41
can confirm labels are not migrated from forgejo to forgejo, but i think they are from pagure to forgejo. either way we don't really use labels much in pagure.io/epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:24:22
weirdly the pagure to forgejo migrator is more mature than the forgejo to forgejo one
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:24:30
Although I understand why Jonathan Wright wants to have redirects .... outside of EPEL's documentation, which we have control over the links, where do people think there is documentation pointing to out issues?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:24:48
Although I understand why Jonathan Wright wants to have redirects .... outside of EPEL's documentation, which we have control over the links, where do people think there is documentation pointing to our issues?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:14
I'm just trying to gauge how big of a deal it will be if things are not in a read-only state, but actually go away.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:25:16
It's not just internal links, but also search engines which need to know where the new content is. I'm annoyed all the time with search results in the old wiki for example.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:25:35
301s fix that but search engines not indexing duplicate content and only indexing the new
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:25:35
redirects may be possible, you are welcome to ask the forge folks if they want to come up with some way to do that. It's definitely not as trivial as you think it is. ;)
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:25:59
search engines gonna search. :(
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:26:13
I'm only thinking of generating a giant htaccess-like list from a nasty bash command...wasn't thinking within the context of all of pagure->forgejo
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:26:33
I would've assumed in the end after final cutover there would be some mass redirects, but it sounds like I'm mistaken on that too :(
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:26:42
i don't think we need to block on the 301s either, as it's outside of our control and will either happen or not happen. we need to get off pagure either way.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:27:13
the problems we ran into when we did that for trac: order matters, weird interactions between projects moved and not, there's a bunch of other urls like releases and docs, any changes caused breakage in other places. It was just a really bad time.
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:27:49
I think that we could ask for the forgejo migration team to take that into account for the general migration case, but I don't think that we should block on it
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:27:56
And if I'm getting the gist right ... you would like to start with the docs first. Just move those parts over into the /epel/docs/ part ... thus leaving the issues alone for now.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:27:59
but if someone else wants to do it, fine. ;)
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:28:42
I'm ok with this kind of phased approach
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:28:45
here's the place to request the redirects https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo-deployment/issues
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:28:58
Personally I'd vote to block on the 301s in relation to moving early
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:29:11
yeah, we could start with the docs and go from there :)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:29:13
i don't think that's an option, the migration copies everything
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:29:35
Oh ... ok. Then I misunderstood.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:29:49
i mean the issues would exist in both at that point, so we have options
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:30:03
no, we can actually only move the repo and prs leaving the issues alone for now
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:30:16
we could close all the migrated issues, keep pagure.io/epel for steering issues until we decide on an epel/steering or whatever repo
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:39
If we can do that, then I think that would be a great way to get things started.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:30:47
oh you're right, i was mistaken, it's a checkbox in the migration page
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:30:51
I like the phased migration approach
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:31:21
less painful to rip the bandaid off slowly
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:07
Because if search engines and/or internal people are linking to the git repo docs, then they are most likely linking to the wrong place.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:33:35
Jonathan Wright: How do you feel about doing just the docs first and save the issues for when we have a 301 solution?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:33:55
Honestly I think the docs are even more important to have 301s
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:34:09
Why is that? The actual place of the docs doesn't change.
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:34:11
really? you mean docs repos?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:34:32
They will still be at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:34:33
Wait, maybe we're talking about different things in the context of docs
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:34:37
the doc server hosting wont change
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:34:53
Ohhhh, ok yeah I can get behind that idea then, we're just talking about sources. Was conflating.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:35:02
yup, this is the migration of the doc sources
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:35:16
Yes ... I guess nobody actually said docs sources.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:35:38
Yep, 301s are less important there for most end users. Potential contributors might get confused, but we can only do what we can do. The funnel of people that'd be impacted and potentially get confused is way smaller.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:37:22
so...vote on moving forward with the migration of docs only?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:23
So, is everyone ok with starting with the doc sources, and leaving the issues where they are for now?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:37:52
sure, seems a good first step.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:38:57
We've got 5, so that is a majority ...
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:39:56
Davide Cavalca: You've been quiet ... I don't know if that means you have two meetings at once, but are you ok with us migrating doc sources first, while leaving the issues where they are?
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:40:33
Yes that's fine
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:40:45
And yes sorry I was indeed multitasking :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:40:58
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:41:00
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:39
!agreed Migrate the EPEL docs source repo to the new area, and leave the issues where they are for now - +1(6) -1(0) 0 (0)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:42:38
Thank you Diego Herrera for creating the issue and working on that. Go ahead with that first step.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:06
I just saw the time, and I hope the next issue is quick, because it hasn't quite been a week yet.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:24
!epel 354
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:43:25
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:43:25
**epel #354** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/354):**Proposal: Allow Controlled Backwards-Incompatible Updates for ROCm in EPEL10**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:43:25
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:43:25
● **Last Updated:** a day ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:43:25
● **Opened:** 5 days ago by tflink
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:01
It hasn't been a week, so we can't officially vote on this ... but a short discussion would be ok.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:44:45
i've got warm and fuzzies about what was discussed on the devel list, just haven't replied in support yet
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:45:04
it seems like a nice plan to me.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:45:22
it seems to be okay with me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:45:31
it's more or less aligning with what they do in Fedora, and I'm okay with that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:45:56
they're being very reasonable and thoughtful about it too
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:45:56
I agree, and it feels like they are being very consiencious (whatever the word is for thinking of the users)
<@tflink:fedora.im>
18:46:00
I didn't realize this was up for discussion this week
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:46:06
sounds fine to me
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:46:12
I'm good with this
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:46:15
this is what we wanted people to do with epel minor versions anyways
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:46:30
tflink: It isn't up for vote, it hasn't had enough time, but we thought we'd do a quick discussion.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:26
If everyone is ok with it, we could probrubly vote in-ticket when the time comes, instead of bringing it up next week.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:47:57
voting in ticket can happen even now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:48:00
there's no reason to wait on that
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:48:22
True
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:48:53
I haven't heard anything negative, or wanting to elaborate more, that wasn't already talked about on the mailing list.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:49:40
So ya, if ya'll want, go ahead and vote on the issue ... but I'll wait two more days to mark the issue approved.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:36
The other issue (#351) hasn't had any update in the past week, so I'm going to skip it since we're short on time.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:51:11
tflink: Thank you for writing such a good request.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:51:30
!topic General Issues / Open Floor
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:51:38
I'm working up the documentation. Will open pr when ready :)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:37
Oh, that's right. Sorry, I looked at the wrong thing.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:48
!epel 351
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:52:49
**epel #351** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/351):**Beta Software Released On Main EPEL Channel**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:52:49
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:52:49
● **Assignee:** rcallicotte
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:52:49
● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by scuttlefish42
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:52:49
● **Last Updated:** 3 hours ago
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:53:55
I'm not sure what we want to do here?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:54:24
Robby is writting a Docs pull request to clarify things a bit better.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:54:55
iirc we said something like SHOULD NOT for pre-release software in epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:11
allow exceptions on maintainer discretion, but discourage
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
This makes room for packager exceptions, but only with good justification and consideration.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
Terms to use: SHOULD NOT
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
```
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
Policy should be updated to discourage beta updates in EPEL before going through Fedora.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
From my notes:
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:14
```
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:55:15
ok. yeah, I know we discussed it.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:35
looking forward to reviewing the pr once it's opened
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:55:37
in general, things should not be landing in EPEL before Fedora
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:55:52
I wish there was a reasonable way to have a bodhi check for that
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:55:54
that's a MUST :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:56:06
it's actually something openSUSE has for their Leap vs Tumbleweed thing
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:56:16
if you want something in Leap, it _must_ be in Tumbleweed first
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:56:21
If we say Rawhide then I am ok with it being MUST
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:56:25
and the update submission is rejected if it's not there first
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:56:34
and the update submission is rejected if it's not there first automatically
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:56:36
If we say all fedora releases it seems onerous
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:56:42
rawhide obv
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:57:01
it's unreasonable to say all stable releases, but it must be in rawhide unless it's defined as an epel-only package
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:57:35
Thank you Robby Callicotte for working on that.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:57:42
I don't know if we can make a check to block updates in the same way in EPEL, but it would be nice if we could
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:57:54
Is there anything else quick for Open Floor before we close up?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:58:14
welcome to winter time this weekend USians :)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:58:46
The time of darkness ...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:58:47
winter is coming
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:59:01
Well, for those up north it's the time of darkness.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:59:13
we aren't even able to block updates that fail to install 😭
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:59:22
ugh
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:16
Thank you all for the great discussions, and for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:26
I'll talk to ya'll next week.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:00:31
thanks Troy Dawson
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
19:00:39
thanks troy
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:47
!endmeeting