On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:44:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter 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 ...
/me laughs nervously
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.
They can also pull the trees from git://gitlab.fd.o/blah as normal, just need to give them new pointers once we're stable.
- 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.
This seems fine to me. Our expansion plans likely aren't big enough to warrant a separate group.
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.
I'm pretty keen on getting this done, so I'll volunteer some cycles if there's something that needs doing.
Sean
Cheers, Daniel
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx