.merge+ #1172 #1190

Added

.merges

luigi1111 rehrar: could you merge repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/merge_requests/112 or my ccs won't show up

<rehrar> How much will you pay me?

<rehrar> 10 XVG? 20?

I can give you 10 moneroV, i heard it's going to moon soon

<rehrar> Deal. Merged.

thanks :)

Hmm. That binaryFate access makes me think that if we do move monero to gitlab, I end up being that one that writes the code and can probably merge things discreetly. Not good.

right now we don't use groups on gitlab, which are meant to be used for capillar access control. I didn't look into this particualr issue tho, so i don't know if that would solve

Do we know why fluffypony uses Github for Tari?

<rehrar> discoverability?

<rehrar> there's nothing like Github for discoverability.

<rehrar> Similar to a dating app. If you have five hundred apps and people are spread across them, it's very annoying. But if most people use one, even if it's not the best, you'll go there to for the sake of being discovered.

Yes, also applies to Monero.

I’m not convinced that we should switch.

<rehrar> dude

T

<rehrar> we need

<rehrar> a federated git workflow thingy

not this discussion again :D

<rehrar> "but git is federated!" mooed the barnyard cattle.

<rehrar> selsta, what if you were the guy that made it??!

<rehrar> you can do it. I believe in you.

how ablj

how about moving back to email for patches?

When did we do that ? I don't remember that.

We didn’t. Other projects still use mailing lists.

Must have stopped pretty early.

I think it's a trade of. I think we should trade some "discoverability" in exchange for the full control of our code

I don’t see how we lose control of monero code by using Github.

i wrote a long comment about this on the dedicated issue on github. Basically, github have the right to shut down monero in any moment

they have to comply with us sanctions, which means they can close accounts and delete repositories

Our domain / servers could get seized at any moment. A lot of things can happen but are unlikely. I just think the trade-off isn’t worth it.

Something that would be very hard to pull of if we have a self hosted instance of gitlab or whatever else

They have the right to shut down the monero repo on their website :)

We can always move when they do something.

But I don’t decide this anyway :)

BTW, it's possible to move it to gitlab and have gitlab auto mirror it to github (the other direction doesn't work though).

Our domain / servers could get seized at any moment -> That's different. Seize a server is not like closing an account on a service we are using. It would be much more difficult to do from a legal point of view. Iwould argue that moving away after something bad happen would be much more disruptive for monero, beside losing all issue and PR history

Issue and PR history can be backed up.

If Github starts deleting random open source projects they will get in a lot of trouble anyway. Imagine the outrage lol

They already did

Link?

The sanctions thing was only related to private repositories by paid accounts.

21:58 <moneromooo> BTW, it's possible to move it to gitlab and have gitlab auto mirror it to github (the other direction doesn't work though). <-- Would still mean using Gitlab UI if I understand this correctly?

it's not only related to private repositories, but to anybody who becomes economical partner of github (or something like that). and that definition is very broad. TOday they could mean private repo, tomorrow all repo

selsta: they probably won't delete open source projects randomly. But we have to think they still have the power and authorization to do it.

Yes. I don't know of a way to use gitlab with github's ui. Who knows, it's all javascript on the web so it might be possible.

Yes, they have the power but nothing is lost if they do so in the unlikely event. Everyone has a local copy of the repository. Discussion can be backed up.

If nothing is lost, then why are we there in the first place.

btw i think i was wrong. I don't think they didn't close any public open source project (that i know of yet)

why are we there ?

> "We’re not doing this because we want to; we’re doing it because we have to"

22:01 <selsta> The sanctions thing was only related to private repositories by paid accounts.

both don’t apply to open source projects

both don’t apply to open source projects -> that's not correct. It's about economical partner of github, not only paid accounts

but we had this discussion before lol

hehehe i just noticed :P

btw, as i said earier: anybody who becomes economical partner of github (or something like that). and that definition is very broad. TOday they could mean private repo, tomorrow all repo

Has anyone inquired to GitLab to see if they'd sponsor a license for an OSS project, so we could use the pull mirroring feature so we've got continual backups off github?

tht tweet is just an interpratation of how US sanctions work

*thir interpretation

I've certianly used GitLab's remote mirror on a commerical license in the past.

Snipa: AFAIK they usually don't

that’s one of the problems I have, the open source edition misses basic features

They certianly do for their hosted impl: about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/projects So might be worth popping them an email.

Or just writing a script to do it, it's just git.

Even peer their spec: gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/community-relations/gitlab-oss They state they offer free Ultimate licenses to qualifying OSS projects.

selsta: what features? I agree some are missing, but none of them is really important. Maybe the ability to approve PRs?

Remote mirroring is the useful one, approve PR's is nice, which we use extensively at the dayjob.

yeah approve PR is nice, but afaik works differently from github. Only specific members of the project can approve (i might be wrong, i'm going by memory of what i read in the docs)

If memory serves right, you can setup an entire group as approvers.

Lemme check real quick

Yup, you can set an entire group as an approver, so you can just manage that group as a no-commit access, and then just use them for approvals, leaving merges to the maintainers.

yeah, my point is that random folks cannot approve like it is now on github

Make it an open-membership group.

Then people can self-join, and get approval access?

sure, not saying there aren't workarounds, just that is different :) I think if we could get a licence we would solve many criticism about gitlab's usability

lets switch to Gitea guiz

should we take down the warning banner on getmonero or it's too to soon? maybe next month?

ErCiccione[m]: now or in the next month makes sense to me

dsc_: gitea best UI ever

maybe because it’s a Github clone and I’m used to it lol

ErCiccione[m]: I think applying for a Gitlab ultimate license would be a good first step.

Super simple, comes in one binary, minimal configuration,

and github-like UI

Then we can try the features, setup CI for monero-site and look how it’s working and then decide if we want to switch all repos.

selsta: CI for monero site is already being configured Moo already installed the runner, We are only waiting to have the PR with the configuration file merged

cool

The runner runs on the same machine?

afaik yes, in a docker container

We could also add CI to test if CCS proposals are formatted correctly :D

definitely. So people don't realize after days that their merged proposal is not showing up

(i found out that mine wasnt showing up because rehrar told me)

I thought mine was just waiting for someone to press an extra button so was waiting patiently ^_^

moneromooo: gitlab security release

Heh, one reason to keep github :D

Done, thanks.

:P