#meeting:fedoraproject.org log

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:00:03

!startmeeting Git Forge Meeting

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:00:04

!topic init

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:00:04

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

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

14:00:05

Meeting started at 2025-03-05 14:00:03 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

14:00:05

The Meeting name is 'Git Forge Meeting'

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:01:10

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:01:11

Nils Philippsen (nphilipp) - he / him / his

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:01:25

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:01:27

Michal Konecny (zlopez)

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:02:11

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:02:13

None (smilner)

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:02:15

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:02:17

Akashdeep Dhar (t0xic0der) - he / him / his

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:04:09

So I read some news about the staging deployment?

<@smilner:fedora.im>

14:05:33

jednorozec: Is it this from David Kirwan? https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/2#comment-959464

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:05:59

Actually I got it from matrix room

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:06:37

but anyhow, last week you guys voted to use codeberg as tracking platform

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:07:12

!topic Staging deployment https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/2

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:07:20

Yeah have a playbook/role for calling helm, which deploys our forked forgejo helm charts and passes in some custom values which can configue stuff like disabling registration, libravatar and FAS auth

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:07:38

nice

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:07:41

its deploying using the upstream images

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:07:55

SO I should be able to pass option to disable organization creation?

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:07:59

so .. i think we're now ready to look at using the ones we will build

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:08:39

yes, hmm if you knwo where the change can be made, roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/template/ theres a values yaml file in there which exposes most of not all places where you can make config changes

<@thisisyaash:fedora.im>

14:08:41

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:08:42

Yashwanth Rathakrishnan (thisisyaash)

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:09:11

yup its option in there

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:09:47

we;d have to redeploy to take it into effect of course. going forward, the changes can be made directly within the filesystem in the app.ini .. and the container would need to be restarted to take effect..

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

14:10:20

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:10:21

Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:10:22

Ok so to sum it up

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:10:43

this https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2 is basicaly the help config file

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:11:17

this https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2 is basicaly the helm config file

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:11:37

hm my muscle memory writes help instead of helm

<@jbley:fedora.im>

14:11:37

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:11:39

Julia Bley (jbley)

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:11:42

yeah, if there is anything sensitive, use the templating fuctions, and put hte values in the ansible private etc

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:11:47

Could we just apply the config without doing the whole deployment?

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:11:55

yeah

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:12:12

so the app.ini is mounted on a file system

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:12:36

and its persisted of course, so if you access the container, make what ever changes are required, and restart the container it will reload, and they will go into effect

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:13:25

and those are 2 different things the helm config is more like deployment config where app.ini is app settings for forgejo

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:13:32

yes

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:13:43

Understood

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:14:34

SO next steps will be to use our own images

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:15:26

Seems like the next step for sure

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:19:02

raleted to the deployment is this

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:19:06

!topic https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/3

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:19:25

so there is the config option in template in ansible

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:19:27

is that it?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:19:51

Do we need to do anything else to have group membership mirrored?

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:19:53

Im using oauth/oidc via ipsilon

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:20:24

right so its about configuring the endpoint and token in app

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:20:46

FAS auth is working from our point of view, but the method of how that is achieved is already documented in forgejo ..

<@lenkaseg:fedora.im>

14:20:49

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:20:50

Lenka Segura (lenkaseg)

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:20:59

Can we get and SOP draft from those 2 issues?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:21:23

Like how to tear down and redeploy the staging environment into the current state

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:21:28

hmm sure yeah, will document how its configured and where the upstream docs are etc

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:21:43

ok ill document whats there so far

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:21:48

yeah just shor doc with all the links and cmd to run

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:22:14

Mind if I shadow you while youre at it? I can document then what I understand.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:23:20

you can sync up offline

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:23:23

lets move on

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:23:32

!topic Integrate Forgejo with Fedora Messaging queue https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/4

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:24:08

so is there anyone who want s to work on this?

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:24:26

So forgejo has webhooks

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:24:34

sure yeah, can share a hackmd to use as a scratchpad while building the sop

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:24:45

But for now webhook to Fedora messaging has support only for GitHub webhooks

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:25:05

To make a general solution - we need to add forgejo support to webhook to Fedora messaging first

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:25:14

I can look into it once I'm done with the sops

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:26:07

are you guys planning to modify forgejo.. or fedmessage?

<@dkirwan:fedora.im>

14:26:20

lets try to limit any modifications to forgejo to a minimum.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:26:40

in long run forgejo will change its architecture to allow plugable messaging

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:26:52

Planning to modify Webhook To Fedora Messaging to support Forgejo? Yes.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:26:59

but we are not going to carry over source patches

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:27:27

But I'd like to have native support based on webhooks for as long as possible. No weird rabbitmq based changes to the actual forgejo codebase.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:28:14

well actually for sure having real messaging support in Frogejo is the goal

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:28:30

The internal golang thing they are using is not that reliable

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:30:19

How should I phrase the ticket for https://github.com/fedora-infra/webhook-to-fedora-messaging

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:30:43

"Add support for webhooks from Forgejo"

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:31:11

yeah that is title :D

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:31:19

That should be the epic - breaks down into multiple small issues that I can triage later

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:31:23

Ohhhhhh

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:31:27

😂

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:32:19

We want Fedora Messaging to receive messages from Forgejo and in an attempt to unify all platforms with the webhooks pattern that Forgejo supports, we want to extend Webhook To Fedora Messaging with the support for webhooks from Forgejo.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:32:42

Sounds like a bunch of managerial bs but hey I'm on my phone...

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:32:51

heh

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:32:57

thanks for inspiration

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:34:34

!link https://github.com/fedora-infra/webhook-to-fedora-messaging/issues/150

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:34:48

ok, moving on.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:36:17

!topic UI changes https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/8

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:36:32

there is a PR with some changes https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo/pulls/12

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:37:25

I asked Yaash: to make some changes and push the resulting image to an image registry for reviewing

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:38:03

well how can you tell its the same PR if you review container image?

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:38:42

Mostly on restoring the default coloring theme options including the accessibility coloring theme options that were previously removed

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:39:49

Its nice progress!

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:40:02

Yaash++

<@thisisyaash:fedora.im>

14:40:02

i have made some changes that Akash requested

<@thisisyaash:fedora.im>

14:40:02

and the image is the one with the updated changes

<@thisisyaash:fedora.im>

14:40:02

<@thisisyaash:fedora.im>

14:40:02

i just need to push the changes to this PR (i forgot, will do it now)

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:40:04

t0xic0der has already given cookies to thisisyaash during the F41 timeframe

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:40:26

humaton gave a cookie to thisisyaash. They now have 12 cookies, 9 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:40:54

!topic Open floor

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:41:14

so I was playing around with the workaround for private issues

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:42:11

Since the private repos are private they allow only people within organization to create tickets in them.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:42:50

lenkaseg has already given cookies to thisisyaash during the F41 timeframe

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:43:27

This kind of sucks, because there is no way for a person to open a ticket and be part of discussion on that ticket. Because if given access they would see all the private tickets in the repo.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:43:47

But what if person A wants to open a ticket in the repo and they see person B's ticket too (eg. Code of Conduct issue tracker)

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:44:13

that is why I followed by it sucks

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:44:24

I am thinking about mailing of issue tickets to a private repository

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:44:50

THat would require us to setup 2way email pipe

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:44:50

Much akin to a support forum - all conversations associated with a ticket will follow through via emails

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:44:59

Yeah, that workaround isn't really one

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:45:23

Not very "open" and "transparent" I know but it is the only workaround that seems to avoid the Person A / Person B problem

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:46:07

In the same vein, sending an email instead of filing a ticket would be a workaround

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:46:29

Exactly what I mentioned

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:47:16

Heh, I meant forgoing tickets altogether, but that difference doesn't really matter 😂

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:47:47

heh

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:48:03

lets abolish tickets, hell also branches

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:48:07

who need branches?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:48:32

version control is overrated

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:49:23

FeDoRa MoVeS tO WoRkDaY oR saLeSfOrCe

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:49:40

Now dem's fighting words

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:49:45

Do we have a wild Phoronix reporter hanging around by any chance?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:50:35

ok so if there is nothing more for the open floor I will close the meeting and give you few minutes of your life back

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:50:49

jednorozec++ for chairing

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:50:51

t0xic0der has already given cookies to humaton during the F41 timeframe

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:51:06

You forgot to mention that you can't even assign the ticket to anyone outside the organization that the private issue is for

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:51:20

thisisyaash gave a cookie to humaton. They now have 86 cookies, 13 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:51:21

Simple - We CC them ;P

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:51:49

Well for the CoC issues its only the CoC team so its Ok

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:51:50

Do you want to post link to mailing thread to ticket? :-D

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:51:54

and for all other the same

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:51:57

dherrera has already given cookies to humaton during the F41 timeframe

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:52:10

you should not be able to assign tickets from random places just because you want to

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:52:30

I think that the assignees would already have access to the issue tracker in its entirety

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:52:57

There would rarely be a chance where an assignee would need exclusive access to tickets from person A and not from person B

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:53:08

Too complicated of a problem that we thankfully do not have to solve

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:53:09

Could you at least move the issue to different org if you find out that this should be opened somewhere else?

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:53:51

We'd simply have to close it and point them to the correct namespace.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:54:04

Forgejo does not support transferring of issue tickets across different namespaces

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:54:24

OK, so same as in pagure :-)

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:54:42

!link https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dist-git-comparison/forgejo.html#:~:text=As%20a%20package%20maintainer%2C%20I%20want%20to%20be%20able%20to%20deal,issue%20ticket%20at%20the%20source%20namespace%20if%20closed%20in%20the%20comments.

<@nphilipp:fedora.im>

14:54:52

Is it different with GitHub or GitLab?

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:55:12

From what I remember you can transfer issue on GitHub

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:55:26

In GitLab, transferring of issue tickets across namespaces is possible

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:55:29

This is fortunately possible in GitLab in a feature (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/issues/managing_issues.html#bulk-move-issues), that is blissfully unrestricted across various tiers of subscription. The transfers work without the restriction of the repositories having to belong under the same namespace.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:55:29

!link As a package maintainer, I want to be able to deal with bugs directly from the forge, and be able to reassign them between projects.

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:55:42

!link https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dist-git-comparison/gitlab.html#:~:text=As%20a%20package%20maintainer%2C%20I%20want%20to%20be%20able%20to%20deal,restriction%20of%20the%20repositories%20having%20to%20belong%20under%20the%20same%20namespace.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:56:03

well it recreates the ticket\

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:56:06

lenkaseg has already given cookies to humaton during the F41 timeframe

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:56:10

its not transfer per say

<@Zlopez:matrix.org>

14:56:48

But it makes the work for user

<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>

14:57:02

Unfortunately, yep.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:57:14

anyway, lets discuss it in the forge chanell

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:57:20

!endmeeting