2025-03-05 14:00:03 <@humaton:fedora.im> !startmeeting Git Forge Meeting
2025-03-05 14:00:04 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic init
2025-03-05 14:00:04 <@humaton:fedora.im> !info this is meeting about the Fedora git forge replacement this meeting template can be found at https://codeberg.org/fedora/gitforge-migration
2025-03-05 14:00:05 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-03-05 14:00:03 UTC
2025-03-05 14:00:05 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'Git Forge Meeting'
2025-03-05 14:01:10 <@nphilipp:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:01:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Nils Philippsen (nphilipp) - he / him / his
2025-03-05 14:01:25 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-05 14:01:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michal Konecny (zlopez)
2025-03-05 14:02:11 <@smilner:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:02:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> None (smilner)
2025-03-05 14:02:15 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:02:17 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Akashdeep Dhar (t0xic0der) - he / him / his
2025-03-05 14:04:09 <@humaton:fedora.im> So I read some news about the staging deployment?
2025-03-05 14:05:33 <@smilner:fedora.im> jednorozec: Is it this from David Kirwan? https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/2#comment-959464
2025-03-05 14:05:59 <@humaton:fedora.im> Actually I got it from matrix room
2025-03-05 14:06:37 <@humaton:fedora.im> but anyhow, last week you guys voted to use codeberg as tracking platform 
2025-03-05 14:07:12 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic Staging deployment https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/2
2025-03-05 14:07:20 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> 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
2025-03-05 14:07:38 <@humaton:fedora.im> nice
2025-03-05 14:07:41 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> its deploying using the upstream images
2025-03-05 14:07:55 <@humaton:fedora.im> SO I should be able to pass option to disable organization creation?
2025-03-05 14:07:59 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> so .. i think we're now ready to look at using the ones we will build
2025-03-05 14:08:39 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> 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
2025-03-05 14:08:41 <@thisisyaash:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:08:42 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Yashwanth Rathakrishnan (thisisyaash)
2025-03-05 14:09:11 <@humaton:fedora.im> yup its option in there 
2025-03-05 14:09:47 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> 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..
2025-03-05 14:10:20 <@dherrera:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:10:21 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
2025-03-05 14:10:22 <@humaton:fedora.im> Ok so to sum it up 
2025-03-05 14:10:43 <@humaton:fedora.im> this https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2 is basicaly the help config file 
2025-03-05 14:11:17 <@humaton:fedora.im> this https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2 is basicaly the helm config file 
2025-03-05 14:11:37 <@humaton:fedora.im> hm my muscle memory writes help instead of helm
2025-03-05 14:11:37 <@jbley:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:11:39 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Julia Bley (jbley)
2025-03-05 14:11:42 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> yeah, if there is anything sensitive, use the templating fuctions, and put hte values in the ansible private etc
2025-03-05 14:11:47 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Could we just apply the config without doing the whole deployment?
2025-03-05 14:11:55 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> yeah
2025-03-05 14:12:12 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> so the app.ini is mounted on a file system
2025-03-05 14:12:36 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> 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
2025-03-05 14:13:25 <@humaton:fedora.im> and those are 2 different things the helm config is more like deployment config where app.ini is app settings for forgejo
2025-03-05 14:13:32 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> yes
2025-03-05 14:13:43 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Understood
2025-03-05 14:14:34 <@humaton:fedora.im> SO next steps will be to use our own images
2025-03-05 14:15:26 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> Seems like the next step for sure
2025-03-05 14:19:02 <@humaton:fedora.im> raleted to the deployment is this
2025-03-05 14:19:06 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/3
2025-03-05 14:19:25 <@humaton:fedora.im> so there is the config option in template in ansible
2025-03-05 14:19:27 <@humaton:fedora.im> is that it?
2025-03-05 14:19:51 <@humaton:fedora.im> Do we need to do anything else to have group membership mirrored?
2025-03-05 14:19:53 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> Im using oauth/oidc via ipsilon
2025-03-05 14:20:24 <@humaton:fedora.im> right so its about configuring the endpoint and token in app
2025-03-05 14:20:46 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> FAS auth is working from our point of view, but the method of how that is achieved is already documented in forgejo ..
2025-03-05 14:20:49 <@lenkaseg:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-05 14:20:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Lenka Segura (lenkaseg)
2025-03-05 14:20:59 <@humaton:fedora.im> Can we get and SOP draft from those 2 issues? 
2025-03-05 14:21:23 <@humaton:fedora.im> Like how to tear down and redeploy the staging environment into the current state
2025-03-05 14:21:28 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> hmm sure yeah, will document how its configured and where the upstream docs are etc
2025-03-05 14:21:43 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> ok ill document whats there so far
2025-03-05 14:21:48 <@humaton:fedora.im> yeah just shor doc with all the links and cmd to run
2025-03-05 14:22:14 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Mind if I shadow you while youre at it? I can document then what I understand.
2025-03-05 14:23:20 <@humaton:fedora.im> you can sync up offline 
2025-03-05 14:23:23 <@humaton:fedora.im> lets move on
2025-03-05 14:23:32 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic Integrate Forgejo with Fedora Messaging queue https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/4
2025-03-05 14:24:08 <@humaton:fedora.im> so is there anyone who want s to work on this?
2025-03-05 14:24:26 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> So forgejo has webhooks
2025-03-05 14:24:34 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> sure yeah, can share a hackmd to use as a scratchpad while building the sop
2025-03-05 14:24:45 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> But for now webhook to Fedora messaging has support only for GitHub webhooks
2025-03-05 14:25:05 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> To make a general solution - we need to add forgejo support to webhook to Fedora messaging first
2025-03-05 14:25:14 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> I can look into it once I'm done with the sops
2025-03-05 14:26:07 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> are you guys planning to modify forgejo.. or fedmessage?
2025-03-05 14:26:20 <@dkirwan:fedora.im> lets try to limit any modifications to forgejo to a minimum.
2025-03-05 14:26:40 <@humaton:fedora.im> in long run forgejo will change its architecture to allow plugable messaging
2025-03-05 14:26:52 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Planning to modify Webhook To Fedora Messaging to support Forgejo? Yes.
2025-03-05 14:26:59 <@humaton:fedora.im> but we are not going to carry over source patches
2025-03-05 14:27:27 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> 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.
2025-03-05 14:28:14 <@humaton:fedora.im> well actually for sure having real messaging support in Frogejo is the goal
2025-03-05 14:28:30 <@humaton:fedora.im> The internal golang thing they are using is not that reliable 
2025-03-05 14:30:19 <@humaton:fedora.im> How should I phrase the ticket for  https://github.com/fedora-infra/webhook-to-fedora-messaging
2025-03-05 14:30:43 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> "Add support for webhooks from Forgejo"
2025-03-05 14:31:11 <@humaton:fedora.im> yeah that is title :D
2025-03-05 14:31:19 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> That should be the epic - breaks down into multiple small issues that I can triage later
2025-03-05 14:31:23 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Ohhhhhh
2025-03-05 14:31:27 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> 😂
2025-03-05 14:32:19 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> 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.
2025-03-05 14:32:42 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Sounds like a bunch of managerial bs but hey I'm on my phone...
2025-03-05 14:32:51 <@humaton:fedora.im> heh
2025-03-05 14:32:57 <@humaton:fedora.im> thanks for inspiration
2025-03-05 14:34:34 <@humaton:fedora.im> !link https://github.com/fedora-infra/webhook-to-fedora-messaging/issues/150
2025-03-05 14:34:48 <@humaton:fedora.im> ok, moving on.
2025-03-05 14:36:17 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic UI changes https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/forgejo-deployment/issue/8
2025-03-05 14:36:32 <@humaton:fedora.im> there is a PR with some changes https://codeberg.org/fedora/forgejo/pulls/12
2025-03-05 14:37:25 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> I asked Yaash: to make some changes and push the resulting image to an image registry for reviewing
2025-03-05 14:38:03 <@humaton:fedora.im> well how can you tell its the same PR if you review container image?
2025-03-05 14:38:42 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Mostly on restoring the default coloring theme options including the accessibility coloring theme options that were previously removed
2025-03-05 14:39:49 <@humaton:fedora.im> Its nice progress!
2025-03-05 14:40:02 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Yaash++
2025-03-05 14:40:02 <@thisisyaash:fedora.im> i have made some changes that Akash requested
2025-03-05 14:40:02 <@thisisyaash:fedora.im> and the image is the one with the updated changes
2025-03-05 14:40:02 <@thisisyaash:fedora.im> 
2025-03-05 14:40:02 <@thisisyaash:fedora.im> i just need to push the changes to this PR (i forgot, will do it now)
2025-03-05 14:40:04 <@zodbot:fedora.im> t0xic0der has already given cookies to thisisyaash during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-05 14:40:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> humaton gave a cookie to thisisyaash. They now have 12 cookies, 9 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-05 14:40:54 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2025-03-05 14:41:14 <@humaton:fedora.im> so I was playing around with the workaround for private issues
2025-03-05 14:42:11 <@humaton:fedora.im> Since the private repos are private they allow only people within organization to create tickets in them. 
2025-03-05 14:42:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> lenkaseg has already given cookies to thisisyaash during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-05 14:43:27 <@humaton:fedora.im> 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.
2025-03-05 14:43:47 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> 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)
2025-03-05 14:44:13 <@humaton:fedora.im> that is why I followed by it sucks
2025-03-05 14:44:24 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> I am thinking about mailing of issue tickets to a private repository
2025-03-05 14:44:50 <@humaton:fedora.im> THat would require us to setup 2way email pipe
2025-03-05 14:44:50 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Much akin to a support forum - all conversations associated with a ticket will follow through via emails
2025-03-05 14:44:59 <@nphilipp:fedora.im> Yeah, that workaround isn't really one
2025-03-05 14:45:23 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Not very "open" and "transparent" I know but it is the only workaround that seems to avoid the Person A / Person B problem
2025-03-05 14:46:07 <@nphilipp:fedora.im> In the same vein, sending an email instead of filing a ticket would be a workaround
2025-03-05 14:46:29 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Exactly what I mentioned 
2025-03-05 14:47:16 <@nphilipp:fedora.im> Heh, I meant forgoing tickets altogether, but that difference doesn't really matter 😂
2025-03-05 14:47:47 <@humaton:fedora.im> heh
2025-03-05 14:48:03 <@humaton:fedora.im> lets abolish tickets, hell also branches
2025-03-05 14:48:07 <@humaton:fedora.im> who need branches?
2025-03-05 14:48:32 <@humaton:fedora.im> version control is overrated
2025-03-05 14:49:23 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> FeDoRa MoVeS tO WoRkDaY oR saLeSfOrCe 
2025-03-05 14:49:40 <@nphilipp:fedora.im> Now dem's fighting words
2025-03-05 14:49:45 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Do we have a wild Phoronix reporter hanging around by any chance?
2025-03-05 14:50:35 <@humaton:fedora.im> 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
2025-03-05 14:50:49 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> jednorozec++ for chairing
2025-03-05 14:50:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> t0xic0der has already given cookies to humaton during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-05 14:51:06 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> You forgot to mention that you can't even assign the ticket to anyone outside the organization that the private issue is for
2025-03-05 14:51:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> thisisyaash gave a cookie to humaton. They now have 86 cookies, 13 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-05 14:51:21 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Simple - We CC them ;P
2025-03-05 14:51:49 <@humaton:fedora.im> Well for the CoC issues its only the CoC team so its Ok
2025-03-05 14:51:50 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Do you want to post link to mailing thread to ticket? :-D
2025-03-05 14:51:54 <@humaton:fedora.im> and for all other the same
2025-03-05 14:51:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> dherrera has already given cookies to humaton during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-05 14:52:10 <@humaton:fedora.im> you should not be able to assign tickets from random places just because you want to
2025-03-05 14:52:30 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> I think that the assignees would already have access to the issue tracker in its entirety
2025-03-05 14:52:57 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> There would rarely be a chance where an assignee would need exclusive access to tickets from person A and not from person B 
2025-03-05 14:53:08 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Too complicated of a problem that we thankfully do not have to solve
2025-03-05 14:53:09 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Could you at least move the issue to different org if you find out that this should be opened somewhere else?
2025-03-05 14:53:51 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> We'd simply have to close it and point them to the correct namespace.
2025-03-05 14:54:04 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Forgejo does not support transferring of issue tickets across different namespaces
2025-03-05 14:54:24 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> OK, so same as in pagure :-)
2025-03-05 14:54:42 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> !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.
2025-03-05 14:54:52 <@nphilipp:fedora.im> Is it different with GitHub or GitLab?
2025-03-05 14:55:12 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> From what I remember you can transfer issue on GitHub
2025-03-05 14:55:26 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> In GitLab, transferring of issue tickets across namespaces is possible
2025-03-05 14:55:29 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> 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.
2025-03-05 14:55:29 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> !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.
2025-03-05 14:55:42 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> !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.
2025-03-05 14:56:03 <@humaton:fedora.im> well it recreates the ticket\
2025-03-05 14:56:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> lenkaseg has already given cookies to humaton during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-05 14:56:10 <@humaton:fedora.im> its  not transfer per say
2025-03-05 14:56:48 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> But it makes the work for user
2025-03-05 14:57:02 <@t0xic0der:fedora.im> Unfortunately, yep. 
2025-03-05 14:57:14 <@humaton:fedora.im> anyway, lets discuss it in the forge chanell 
2025-03-05 14:57:20 <@humaton:fedora.im> !endmeeting