16:58:11 <djmitche> #startmeeting weekly
16:58:11 <bb-supy> Meeting started Tue Mar  7 16:58:11 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is djmitche. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:58:11 <bb-supy> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:58:11 <bb-supy> The meeting name has been set to 'weekly'
16:58:15 <djmitche> #topic Introduction
16:58:22 <djmitche> https://titanpad.com/buildbot-agenda
16:58:28 <djmitche> Roll Call :)
16:58:39 <djmitche> #nick tardyp
16:59:27 <djmitche> (I started a little early..)
17:00:19 <tardyp> hello all. anybody here?
17:00:57 <rutsky> hi!
17:02:08 <djmitche> yay!
17:02:18 <djmitche> ok, three's a quorum, I guess :)
17:02:23 <djmitche> #topic Week in Review
17:03:01 <djmitche> looks like a lighter week - no more py3 stuff
17:03:44 <tardyp> indeed. py3 is done. remy is working on the secret manager
17:03:47 <djmitche> prep for 0.9.5, I take it?
17:03:48 <djmitche> awesome
17:03:56 <tardyp> I've been working on the trac2gh in between
17:03:59 <djmitche> #info py3 work is done
17:04:10 <djmitche> #info Remy is working on the secret manager, which will be in 0.9.5
17:04:22 <tardyp> We need to have the secret manager more ready before releasing
17:04:26 <djmitche> #info tardyp has been working on trac2gh (more below)
17:04:32 <djmitche> "more ready" :)
17:04:33 <paul> tardyp: that's fine, latent workers only defined to be part of builds that have to run on them.
17:04:34 <tardyp> there is still one PR that I'd like to see in before releasing
17:04:44 <bb-github> [13buildbot] 15wainersm commented on issue #2839: Hold on this review, I am preparing a test case to integrate into the commit. 02https://git.io/vy00f
17:05:03 <paul> I have a 'vm' tag in my config and my general build recipes only add the non-VM workers.
17:05:46 <tardyp> next topic?
17:05:52 <djmitche> #topic Releases
17:05:57 <djmitche> I guess we discussed that :)
17:06:13 <djmitche> #info need a "more ready" secret manager before 0.9.5
17:06:18 <djmitche> #topic Trac -> Github
17:06:27 <djmitche> I got pinged on some test migrations.. how's this going?
17:07:12 <rutsky> what will be with ticket numbers?
17:07:19 <tardyp> I reported here https://lists.buildbot.net/pipermail/devel/2017-March/012341.html
17:07:28 <tardyp> didn't get much feedback
17:07:32 <rutsky> they are used as identifiers in bunch of places (code, docs, other tickets)
17:07:44 <tardyp> the ticket will be updated with the link to github
17:08:02 <tardyp> I suggest we keep it like this
17:08:11 <tardyp> and we add a new :issue:1234
17:08:13 <rutsky> and later we rewrite all references to github?
17:08:15 <tardyp> which points to github
17:08:23 <rutsky> sgtm
17:08:31 <tardyp> so we have the time to migrate if necessary
17:08:48 <tardyp> as trac is pointing to gh and we dont intend to close trac any time soon I think its okay
17:09:01 <rutsky> will trac became readonly?
17:09:13 <djmitche> for tickets, I would think yes
17:09:18 <djmitche> wiki etc. can stay open
17:09:26 <rutsky> yes, for tickets
17:09:48 <rutsky> what about users that don't want to register on github? there are no such active users, right?
17:10:11 <djmitche> I think those folks are the same folks that refuse to enable javascript in their browser
17:10:21 <tardyp> not to my knowledge
17:10:38 <rutsky> omg, you enable js in the browser??! :)
17:10:45 <djmitche> haha, yes
17:10:47 <djmitche> images too!
17:11:13 <djmitche> so when do you think we'd be able to make this switch for real?
17:11:20 <rutsky> I use NoScript and have JS disabled by default ;)
17:11:27 <tardyp> as soon as I got the go to do it.
17:12:17 <djmitche> oh, great!
17:12:24 <djmitche> I'm happy to 👍
17:12:30 <rutsky> tardyp: do you gave trac-github accounts map?
17:12:31 <djmitche> rutsky: do you see any reason not to?
17:12:38 <tardyp> https://lists.buildbot.net/pipermail/devel/2017-March/012341.html
17:12:50 <tardyp> ah I already pasted that
17:13:03 <rutsky> djmitche: I'm trying to come up with any obstacles, but looks like there should be nothing that should stop migration
17:13:06 <tardyp> 200 bugs to be transitioned
17:13:24 <tardyp> I got the map indeed.
17:13:31 <tardyp> a few of them I had to map manually
17:13:40 <tardyp> by googling for email addresses
17:13:48 <tardyp> some people do not have gh account afaik
17:14:12 <djmitche> they should see the post to the trac ticket though
17:14:13 <tardyp> and I only look manually for people with more than 3 contributions in the trac
17:14:15 <djmitche> so they can follow along
17:14:20 <tardyp> indeed
17:14:28 <tardyp> I did not think about it
17:14:38 <djmitche> I don't think (a) we're losing anything and (b) we're cutting anyone out of conversations
17:14:45 <tardyp> The thing is that iw will generate a lot of emails
17:14:55 <djmitche> and (c) I think this implementation does lots of other great stuff (mentions, comments, etc.)
17:15:10 <tardyp> I was wondering if I should @mention people or mention their id without the @
17:15:15 <djmitche> hm, yeah
17:15:22 <tardyp> so that somebody can easily ping if needed
17:15:24 <djmitche> I guess the @mention doesn't really do anything except spam, right?
17:15:31 <djmitche> yeah
17:15:37 <rutsky> what will happen with not migrated tickets from trac?
17:15:42 <tardyp> the people will be marked in CC automatically
17:15:52 <djmitche> oh, good point
17:15:59 <djmitche> how many people is it?
17:16:00 <rutsky> I assume most of them are outdated/plans for future/etc?
17:16:01 <tardyp> I did migrate tickets with 0.9.0+ milestones
17:16:10 <tardyp> but more recent than 2014
17:16:15 <djmitche> rutsky: yeah, and they could probably be migrated manually if someone wants to pick them up
17:16:27 <tardyp> There are some old reports by warner that I dont think are useful
17:16:44 <tardyp> indeed
17:16:44 <rutsky> so there is a way to migrate single ticket later using Misha's scripts?
17:16:58 <tardyp> not really, but a new report will probably be better
17:17:19 <rutsky> ok, new report crossreferencing original ticket in trac and back
17:17:36 <djmitche> I suspect we can put a banner on Trac saying "if you want to update, please open a new issue with a link pointing to this ticket"
17:17:56 <rutsky> djmitche: good idea
17:18:05 <djmitche> I say let's do it
17:18:25 <rutsky> and we should somehow warn people who try to register on Trac that they should submit tickets on Github
17:18:30 <djmitche> I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns: 5h more work on this is only going to save 1h of work later
17:18:42 <tardyp> indeed
17:18:57 <tardyp> trac is already very low activity right now
17:19:12 <djmitche> yeah, I'm not too worried about that
17:19:22 <djmitche> I suspect everyone new to the project tries to create a GH issue first
17:19:25 <djmitche> already
17:19:29 <rutsky> ok, let's do it :)
17:20:28 <djmitche> #agreed let's do it!
17:20:36 <tardyp> \o/
17:20:52 <djmitche> #info there are about 200 tickets affected, limited to open ticket with 0.9.0+ milestones and newer than 2014
17:21:06 <djmitche> #info trac tickets will be made read-only afterward
17:21:17 <tardyp> once it will be done, I will probably close a bunch of them
17:21:30 <djmitche> I don't mind either way about the @mentions -- 50 emails are easy enough to delete
17:21:40 <tardyp> because for what I've seen a lot are outdated or already fixed
17:21:43 <djmitche> haha, ok
17:22:07 <tardyp> we can see how good is gh in term of issue management
17:23:00 <tardyp> shall we wrap up. I got to go soon
17:23:16 <djmitche> yes, unless there's other business
17:23:43 <djmitche> rutsky: I was happy to see your transaction completed :)
17:23:49 <tardyp> indeed
17:23:52 <djmitche> #endmeeting