On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think it's time to brainstorm a bit about the gitlab migration. Basic reasons: > > - fd.o admins want to deprecate shell accounts and hand-rolled > infrastructure, because it's a pain to keep secure&updated. > > - gitlab will allow us to add committers on our own, greatly > simplifying that process (and offloading that task from fd.o admins). > > There's also some more benefits we might want to reap, like better CI > integration for basic build testing - no more "oops didn't build > drm-misc defconfigs" or "sry, forgot make check in maintainer-tools". > But that's all fully optional. > > For the full in-depth writeup of everything, see > > https://www.fooishbar.org/blog/gitlab-fdo-introduction/ > > I think now is also a good time, with mesa, xorg, wayland/weston and > others moved, to start thinking about how we'll move drm. There's a > few things to figure out though: > > - We probably want to split out maintainer-tools. That would address > the concern that there's 50+ committers to an auto-updating shell > script ... > > - We need to figure out how to handle the ACL trickery around drm-tip in gitlab. > > - Probably good to stage the migration, with maintainer-tools, igt > leading. That will also make fd.o admins happy, who want to rework > their cloud infrastructure a bit before migrating the big kernel repos > over. > > - Figuring out the actual migration - we've been adding a pile of > committers since fd.o LDAP was converted to gitlab once back in > spring. We need to at least figure out how to move the new > accounts/committers. > > - Similar, maintainer-tools needs to move. We probably want to move > all the dim maintained kernel repos in one go, to avoid headaches with > double-accounts needed for committers. > > - CI, linux-next and everyone else should be fine, since the > cgit/non-ssh paths will keep working (they'll be read-only mirrors). > Need to double-check that with everyone. > > - Some organization structure would be good. > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm > > libdrm won't be part of the gitlab drm group because that's already > moved under mesa (and you can't symlink/mulit-home anymore on gitlab): > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm > > But there's also drm_hwcomposer, which we might want to migrate into > drm too - gitlab requires a containing group, and > drm_hwcomposer/drm_hwcomposer is a bit silly. > > Note: Access rights can be done at any level in the hierarchy, the > organization is orthogonal to commit rights. > > - Anything else I've forgotten. > > A lot of this still needs to be figured out first. As a first step I'm > looking for volunteers who want to join the fun, besides comments and > thoughts on the overall topic of course. Just a couple of concerns from drm/i915 perspective for starters: - Patchwork integration. I think we'll want to keep patchwork for at least intel-gfx etc. for the time being. IIUC the one thing we need is some server side hook to update patchwork on git push. - Sticking to fdo bugzilla and disabling gitlab issues for at least drm-intel for the time being. Doing that migration in the same go is a bit much I think. Reassignment across bugzilla and gitlab will be an issue. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
