On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:40 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:22:25AM +0000, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > # GitLab AMA Session Topic - Namespace & Issue Tracking > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Thanks again for your involvement in the GitLab AMA session on IRC in > > September. This email discussion thread is on Namespace & Issue > > Tracking. I have pulled the relevant questions and answers from the > > original hackmd doc into one email and if you would like to discuss > > this topic specifically, here might be a good place to do so so your > > conversations don't go down a 'rabbit hole' :) > > > > Here are some links to resources as well: > > * Questions and Answers hackmd link https://hackmd.io/RW8HahOeR7OJPON1dwuo3w > > * Chat log from session > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-09-10/ama_session_with_gitlab.2020-09-10-13.31.log.html > > * AMA Blog post > > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/gitlab-ama-follow-up/#more-9346 > > * Here is this email in hackmd if you wish to view it there: > > https://hackmd.io/oZrDwbSeSWO-l_X65A1ndg?view > > > > ## Namespace & Issue Tracking Hello, it's me. Again :) I can't remember, but was the question whether we can actually recreate our current namespace setup with GitLab resolved? I.e. is it possible to have the same top-level "rpms" / "modules" / "tests" namespaces without creating "User groups" for them? > Looks like a duplicated question, but the answer is the same :) > > > - Question: Fedora, as far as I understand, still plan on using > > bugzilla as issue tracker. Currently default assignee and the CC are > > gathered using the ``main admin`` (ie: the ``owner`` for GitLab iiuc), > > the other maintainers (who did not ``unwatch issues`` in the project - > > mechanism for them to opt-out of being in the CC list) and the people > > having enabled ``Issue watching`` for the project (mechanism for them > > to opt-in into being in the CC list). Would this work in a GitLab > > world? > > - Answer: There are a number of options related to that. For one, > > users can control their notifications globally and by name space in a > > fine grained way (see GitLab Notification Emails). > > This is not actually answering the question. > We need two information for every project/package: > - a default assignee (a single person) > - a list of people to add on Cc > > Currently it is: > - default assignee == main admin > - Cc list == > - all packagers with commit access and above who have not "unwatch" the > project (which is the mechanism allowing packager with commits to not be > included in the Cc list, this is used among others by the kernel folks) > - everyone who "watches issues" on a package (even if they are not packagers). > > From one of the previous threads, I believe the solution thought for this was > basically: pkgdb3 > It would be our central system to integrate gitlab with every other application > that is package related in Fedora (anitya, bugzilla, new package requests, new > branch requests, ACL requests). > pkgdb2 was a glorified gitolite admin UI, pkgdb3 would be a glorified gitlab > admin UI :) Yeah :/ I see no way to do that without implementing a "glue" service that handles all the things GitLab cannot do for us. Should we maybe collect a list of things / services / tasks that this "pkgdb3" service would need to handle? That should help us get a feeling for the scope, size and necessary work for this kind of project ... Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
