Gitea Diaries: Part 1
6 Likes
aaaah, derailed thread again… i thought this post/thread would have been about focussing on the devt blender is doing, not going back to the things where conclusion was made.
what decades ago, the discussion only happened in march this year.
hey @Arnd , please add the link to that old post ( Developer.blender.org - Call for comments and participation - #78 by Alan-Reviewer ) with a notice that discussion about alternates MUST go there…
it’s very distracting and tiresome to go over same things singing in favour of github/gitlab over and over
discussion about alternates MUST go there…
it’s very distracting and tiresome to go over same things singing in favour of github/gitlab over and over
Just to be clear:
There is no more discussion to be had about that.
The decision has already been made that we will go and try to do a full deployment and migration to Gitea.
If that fails, then we can start discussing alternatives again.
14 Likes
yeah, that’s what i thought and came here. but was disappointed to see the derailing here… anyways… 'ts okay.
Hi @Arnd,
I work on a Gitea based import/export package and closely follow the main branch of the Gitea codebase to stay up to date and ensure my contributions can be merged upstream.
Is there a place where I can follow the progress of the work done to modify the Gitea import/export code so that Blender can migrate from phabricator to Gitea?
The blog post published about two weeks ago reads:
And, quite significantly, we’re in the finishing stages of having a support agreement with the Gitea project to have them support us in our migration by funding work on missing features, code and bugfixes that will be available 100% to Gitea users under Gitea’s MIT license.
Which suggests discussions are ongoing but I’ve not read any specifics, either here or in the Gitea forums & chat rooms. Since Gitea is not an incorporated organization, I assume “the Gitea project” means these discussions happened with one or more of the three current “owners” (that’s the top of the foodchain in the Gitea community), in private.
While this is by no mean an obligation, it would be great to have clarity and transparency on this project. It would help me and others in the Gitea community anticipate and adapt depending on what is planned and discussed. This is the first time a support contract is being negotiated within the Gitea community and I’m very happy this is with Blender, a project dear to me 
The work done to transition from phabricator is likely to translate in a very large pull request that will introduce many significant changes in the migration code and quite possibly the database structure as well. Watching successive draft implementations over time would also give me an opportunity to contribute.
Thanks in advance for shading some light on this exciting project 
10 Likes
Hey there @loic-dachary!
You’re right in wondering ‘where the code is’.
To get-up-to-speed asap I defaulted to using a self-hosted GITEA instance I had set up on a machine before, which isnt quite production-suitable; but was available and at least ‘good enough’ to start hosting some private repo material to share between the GITEA people and Blender.
This is not ‘how it should be’ ™ and my main focus right now is to set up a good place for this in Blender’s studio-infra to host this, instead.
Both the reason why ‘this happened in the first place’ and ‘why it hasnt been fixed yet’ has to do with a dutch hacker-conference taking away time. I just arrived back yesterday night. Hopefully this week I’ll be able to get it moved to a publically accessible place for people to have a look.
Right now it consists of:
- A customized ‘Go/Goth’ oauth version with support for Blender-ID
- A GITEA tree that incorporates the altered goth-module
- A phabricator-migration-process repo that is used to track issues, share considerations and pull all the parts of issues together.
Wrt. to the talks with GITEA; we are indeed talking with the people who are behind the project as well as the efforts to add an organization behind it to support users/organizations who use Gitea as well as to function as a way to receive funds to support developers. Some of this happened on the gitea discord, some of it in mail, a good bit in video-chat (jitsi)
I believe that (sadly ?) we are not entirely the first organization that the Gitea project is supporting in this manner; but we are likely the first public one in that respect.
With regards to expected code-changes, we’re hoping to have the changes be mostly in the form of features that will indeed percolate into the main Gitea repo in the form of changes to migration code and/or (optional) functionality that can be used by others. We already identified some code which’ll likely be of very little re-use value, but will be freely shared/shown so that people can see what was involved in our conversion.
Main things that we have identified so far are:
- Extension of migration-code to allow for higher fidelity data-imports
- Custom Phabricator->‘migration-import-data’ tool to map blender-related tags/projects/etc to equivalents in gitea
- Possible new logic around the git-server providing for different behaviours when using ‘fork’ (to save diskspace) (under investigation)
- Code related to tags/labels/workboards (under investigation)
These are the ‘larger topics’ at the moment; next to questions of scaling, provisioning, etc… but the above ones are the most relevant wrt. to ‘expected code-additions’ from the top of my head.
Cheers for reaching out and hope to be able to provide more, soon.!
–
Arnd
8 Likes
- hey, i was just thinking today, and this incurred to me that
- the workflow on the “issue tracker” in the phabricator, IIRC, was:
r > t > d or in other words
report > task > differential
and the workflow in other “modern?” issue trackers is:
issue > merge request
(ofcourse, these both can be preceeded by discussions in other places)
that is:
- there was an additional level of “report” before “task”
- where “report” is the generally user filed so, verbose, overdetailed stuff, sometimes contains multiple issues too
- and the “task” is isolated technical tangible aim filed by the team
- that is, there’s an extra dimension/room for it, which helps a lott in issue management
- and, since the modern issue trackers are just markdown comments and replies,
- so, in those ones, this can effectively be accomplished by just having an additional clone of the same tracker for issues, and giving it a different name
and if the need of advanced features like tree-graph for tasks (like in phab) arises, that can be implemented later.
Questions:
- thoughts? do the 2 trackers for same repo make sense? will they be useful?
- Do gitea have something like that?
- do blender want it?
Addendum:
Umh, this suggestion is on the underlying software side or “what we have” side of things, i have some further ideas on how these (combined with availability of subgroups) can be used for even more effective organization - but that will be on “how we use it” side of things. and that is out of scope currently.
@anonym Phabricator doesn’t have an additional level for reports. We have tasks of different types: bug report, known issue, to do, design. Triaging is already time consuming, having multiple tasks associated with one bug report does not seem worth it, there’s already the code review for more technical discussion.
1 Like
@Arnd Thanks for the update Has there been new updates? Maybe a repository where the work is making progress that I could look at? I’m eager to follow how this is going
Hi,
I’m actively working on the Friendly Forge Format (F3) and its Gitea integration. While it’s not yet anything that would help Blender in a concrete way, I’m very interested to learn more about the work in progress to improve this emerging forge interchange format.
Where could I read more about the ongoing progress?
3 Likes
After the recent events about Gitea, has the Blender Foundation decided to move to Forgejo ?
2 Likes
Wtf! What does this change for Blender?
considering that the blender foundation is one of giteas customers that required cooperation / custom stuff (atleast that’s the impression I got from the talks at bcon) – and that blenders model was specifically mentioned by gitea as an example for how they want to govern themselves in the future, I don’t think this will affect the phabricator → gitea migration.
that being said, the situation is very funny on multiple levels lol
1 Like
I would be surprised if the migration was affected by this. However, the sustainability might be.
source? blender clearly says about this, but i didn’t find anything similar giving details about Gitea limited on gitea website! Either this is a mistake, or it alone says a lot about gitea limited’s future (as even if they are exploring options, they didn’t mention that anywhere)?
The Blender Foundation (2002) is an independent public benefit organization
- Blender Foundation — blender.org
they just mention the traits which at least on surface seem similar to blender foundation’s. but the part i quoted from you is nowhere there. and again, they don’t even say about any prospect of type of foundation the gitea limited will be.
Yeah, maybe they’re taking time and it’s too soon, but… umh, i don’t hold my hopes for it
“blenders model was specifically mentioned by gitea as an example for how they want to govern themselves in the future”
5 Likes
How we can see the milestones on gitea? Are there or not?
And why not logged can’t see tickets, etc… this is bad for google search/robots and more easy find…
EDIT:
Ok, working but link above should be checked