#meeting:fedoraproject.org log

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:00:33

!startmeeting Git Forge Meeting

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

14:00:35

Meeting started at 2025-02-26 14:00:33 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

14:00:35

The Meeting name is 'Git Forge Meeting'

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:00:42

!info this is meeting about the Fedora git forge replacement this meeting template can be found at https://codeberg.org/fedora/gitforge-migration

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:00:52

!topic roll call

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:01:00

Rise and shine, fellas!~

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:01:02

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:01:03

Aoife Moloney (amoloney)

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:01:14

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:01:15

Akashdeep Dhar (t0xic0der) - he / him / his

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:01:51

We'll give it some 5 minutes for folks to convene

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:03:28

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:03:29

None (smilner)

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:03:47

That's an interesting name ;P

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:04:24

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:04:25

Nils Philippsen (nphilipp) - he / him / his

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:04:40

Alright - I think that's all of us - Let us start with the agenda items first before we move on to the status updates on the tickets created so far

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:04:58

Starting with the banger here...

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:05:03

!topic discussion about formalization of the efforts as a community initiative

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:05:09

!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Git_Forge_Initiative_2025

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:05:13

!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/525

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:05:22

Aoife Moloney: the stage is yours

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:05:30

Cool, thank you :)

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:05:44

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:05:46

Michal Konecny (zlopez)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:06:24

Tl;Dr - at the council hackfest we agreed that community initiatives are one of the ways in which the council want to drive work thats important to the strategy

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

14:06:54

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:06:55

Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:06:57

The git forge is one of them at it fits with a goal of 'Mdernizing our communications and tooling'...or something like that

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:07:37

so I requested the git forge be proposed as a formal initiative, which ryanlerch and jednorozec created as a wiki and Ive put it forward to the council to bring it inline with our policies, etx

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:07:43

so I requested the git forge be proposed as a formal initiative, which ryanlerch and jednorozec created as a wiki and Ive put it forward to the council to bring it inline with our policies, etc

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:07:59

thats all

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:08:27

Thanks Aoife Moloney, the wiki page has been linked above in the meeting logs for folks to look at.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:08:43

Moving on to the next topic...

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:08:51

!topic discussion about deciding the working place for fedora forgejo efforts

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:09:02

We currently have a couple of places where this is going down

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:09:28

The initially created Pagure namespace which has existed for over a couple of months now

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:09:34

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issues

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:10:03

And the recently active Codeberg namespace that we are thinking of moving things over to

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:10:10

!link https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo-deployment/issues

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:10:35

Let us use this time to discuss where exactly we want to coalesce our efforts and be done with this confusion

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:11:00

I would be against moving to codeberg as there isn't any FAS integration yet and plenty of people can miss it because of that

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:11:17

thats why we have a room

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:12:00

I am for Codeberg. If folks want to contribute, creating an account won't be a pain.

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:12:03

Is FAS integration a need for general usage? I know we have a number of things on GitHub too and I'm unclear if we have FAS integration.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:12:21

Plus the dogfooding would help us realize a bunch of other things that we might have to take care of as we go on using Forgejo for something functional.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:12:54

if people want to take part, they will be able to create an account for the thing we are moving to

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:13:09

plus, we have this room to redirect them and help onboard them

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:13:23

Not really, but it would be easier for people to get in the project

<@lenkaseg:fedora.im>

14:13:41

1hi

<@lenkaseg:fedora.im>

14:13:45

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:13:46

Lenka Segura (lenkaseg)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:14:06

I disagree

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:14:10

It is important to note that an account on Codeberg is kinda needed for contributing to the bunch of namespaces where actual work is taking place

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:14:16

!link https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo-helm

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:14:23

!link https://codeberg.org/fedora/oci-image-definitions

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:14:34

if people want to get involved, they will likely go here (matrix first) and then we can redirect then to codeberg

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:15:16

What about the issues that are currently on pagure.io?

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:15:17

!link https://chat.fedoraproject.org/?searchMembers=#/room/#fedora-forgejo:fedora.im

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:15:38

ryanlerch has migrated a bunch of those over to the new namespace

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:15:45

they are all on codeberg already, plus the ui is better and its much better for project tracking

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:16:04

We should *not* be using the thing we are retiring

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:16:09

(Minus the ones that we created today or tomorrow because of the confusion as to where we would want to keep things)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:16:10

we should be using the thing we are moving to

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:17:12

Do we plan to have FAS integration on codeberg?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:17:22

yeah I would expect so!

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:17:28

that would be weird if we didnt

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:17:30

Is it necessary?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:17:44

oh wait, I meant forgejo

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:17:48

Aoife Moloney: We'd have it in our Fedora Forgejo

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:17:51

Not in Codeberg haha

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:18:00

yeah sorry I got confust

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:18:08

All good

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:19:13

To answer Zlopez's question - we prolly don't need to introduce the FAS support there

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:19:59

A bunch of us contributing to the efforts already have Codeberg accounts and once we have the Fedora Forgejo namespace available the FAS support would serve no purpose of Codeberg

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:21:24

wearing my council hat - I would prefer we do not use the thing we want to migrate from as the project hosting for this work

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:22:03

I am not convinced or concerned that we will lose out on contributors. I believe we can utilise the forgejo room to onboard people who want to help out through there

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:22:04

Yes, the work should be done there, I agree

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:22:38

Let us have a quick vote then for the visibility purposes - It should not look like we bribed Zlopez with a bunch of Colur plushies ;P

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:23:06

!proposal Use codeberg namespace for the ticketing/planning purposes

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:23:17

Let's see those +1s, -1s and 0s, folks...

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:24:11

-1 for now, but +1 in the future

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:24:20

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:24:26

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:24:31

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:24:35

ryan was +1 earlier when we spoke

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

14:24:50

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:25:10

0 (I abstain)

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:25:20

Closing voting in a couple of minutes

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:25:43

"Speak now or forever hold your silence" or something

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:28:19

!agreed The codeberg namespace would now be used for ticketing/planning purposes (5x +1s, 2x 0s, 1x -1s)

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:28:41

Moving on to the next topic...

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:28:51

!topic discussion about another meeting time to better suit APAC contributors

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:29:01

Aoife Moloney: the stage is yours again ;P

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:30:34

So there are a number of people, including this team lead, is in APAC so I think we should have a matching meeting in this timezone

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:31:05

so two meetings on Wednesday - one in the early EMEA morning, and one in the EMEA afternoon/evening to catch more timezones

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:33:02

we will need a 'handover' of sorts for the 2nd call to keep the work progress up to date too and decisions will need to either happen in a ticket vote or in one of the calls specifically

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:33:34

+1 to the idea. Subjectively speaking, I would not want to be around computers at 2000hrs.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:33:52

A shared hackmd? Or would the meeting logs suffice just fine?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:34:26

both?

<@lenkaseg:fedora.im>

14:34:28

When is the earlier one happening?

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:34:33

That makes sense to me ... everything is a ticket, the hackmd acts as "the board" with context for hand off?

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:35:29

That would be probably a good idea for infra, will need to propose it on infra weekly meeting

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:35:35

I suggest that the votings should not take place in the meetings at all.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:35:37

It should be tickets for visibility purposes and the avoid the survivorship bias thingy for when someone could not make it to a meeting due to some reason.

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:35:42

That would be probably a good idea for infra as well, will need to propose it on infra weekly meeting

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:36:15

But it will take more time

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:37:09

You should say how long it will need to be open, so it doesn't take 2 weeks to make decision

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:37:27

Zlopez: valid point

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:37:40

so another spanner in the works - all technical decisions should be presented as change proposals to fesco to vote on

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:38:02

big things, that is

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:38:06

Aoife Moloney: What's the granularity there?

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:38:07

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:38:16

So architectural?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:38:20

yeah

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:38:21

Or higher than that?

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:39:15

I think minor things can be voted upon in meetings, medium ones can be made into Fedora Forgejo tickets and large ones can make it to FESCo?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:39:19

so the rule of thumb for change proposal is: anything that changes *what* we build or *how* we build it that is a part of Fedora Linux is a change proposal

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:39:41

There is unfortunately no one size fits all kinda approach with the decision making

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:40:11

this work hits that whole statement, so I would suggest spending time creating several change proposal that cover the big chunks of work and submitting them to FESCp=o

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:41:02

I dont think deploying our own Forgejo needs to be approved by FESCo, but their opinions on the plan could be useful

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:41:16

So things _in_ the distribution or that directly _impact_ usage?

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:41:16

> part of Fedora Linux

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:41:27

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:41:27

So things _in_ the distribution or that directly _impact_ usage?

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:41:27

> part of Fedora Linux

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:41:53

however, plans to migrate the package sources is definitely a FESCo thing, imo

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:42:16

both, but Id need you to define usage as well

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:42:29

IMO this fits the “how we build things” slot neatly

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:42:37

Usage would be things like "how I get rpms" or "where my containers come from"

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:42:52

yeah thats change proposals

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:43:18

if anything changes on how the project provides the rpms, etc, that needs a change proposal

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:44:38

So from this proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Git_Forge_Initiative_2025

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:45:20

Points 2 - 5 should be presented to FESCo (not necessarily altogether) as change proposals to get technical guidance and approval for Fedora

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:45:32

point 1 needs infra sign off :)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:45:58

but I think thats been well discussed here and there is a plan in place for the deployment anyway, and it doesnt change Fedora Linux as we know it right now

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:46:20

(Time check - We're down to the last 14 minutes)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:51:29

So to summarize: Add an additional meeting that is more APAC-friendly. Use the meeting logs as a handover for the 2nd meeting. Decisions should be made as a ticket and voted on, but they should be low-level enough that do not require change proposals. Points 2 - 5 require change proposals outlining the proposed technical approach the team intends to take for feedback and approval. These change proposals can be phased, and are not needed all at the same time/

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:51:34

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:51:35

(Time check - We're down to the last 10 minutes)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:51:51

So to summarize: Add an additional meeting that is more APAC-friendly. Use the meeting logs as a handover for the 2nd meeting. Decisions should be made as a ticket and voted on, but they should be low-level enough that do not require change proposals. Points 2 - 5 in the community initiative wiki require change proposals outlining the proposed technical approach the team intends to take for feedback and approval. These change proposals can be phased, and are not needed all at the same time.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:51:57

t0xic0der has already given cookies to amoloney during the F41 timeframe

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:52:16

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:52:19

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:52:40

I don't think we should put distgit and non-distgit stuff in the same instance

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:53:29

mostly because I actually expect some serious policy stuff will need to be applied to the distgit system

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:53:33

nils seems to be typing something for quite a while (or is facing a cat attack(

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:53:33

Should we move on to the open floor?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:54:01

but otherwise procedure-wise it makes sense

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:54:45

Conan Kudo: Lets talk about this further in here the Fedora Forgejo channel or further in the next meeting.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:54:48

!link https://chat.fedoraproject.org/?searchMembers=#/room/#fedora-forgejo:fedora.im

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:54:55

!topic open floor

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:55:19

We could not grab some more tickets to look into in the absence of time but if there's something that people wanna bring up - Now's the best time to do it.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:56:45

Either that or I can give three minutes worth of time back to you.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:57:41

Do you agree with the request to have change proposals?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:57:50

yes

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:58:07

we did that the first go around when we deployed pagure

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:59:13

I believe workarounds are being looked into, and I expect they will be proposed publicly. I have ideas on that one as that will liekly hit more than just FESCo, so ideally a panel of stakeholders should give an ack or nack on what the team comes up with before that gets implemented

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:59:29

Hurray! I passed the Neal sanity-check :D

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

14:59:59

distgit requires fesco, "regular" pagure.io replacement will require _all_ stakeholders

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

15:00:09

different policies, different affected teams

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

15:00:41

Closing the meeting to give way to the next ones - Lets discuss this more in the channel

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

15:00:48

Thank you for being here folks

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

15:00:51

!endmeeting