incremental migration to github?

1411 views
Skip to first unread message

Ralf Stephan

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 11:20:38 AM1/11/16
to sage-devel
Can you think of ways to move development step-by-step to github?

What would be wrong with accepting pull requests for *some parts of Sage, then review, followed by submission to trac by an intermediary?
This would need a second repository I guess. Permissions to merge could be given on request.

Other ideas?

William Stein

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 11:26:05 AM1/11/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com, Robert Bradshaw
Hi,

For what it is worth I'm highly supportive of Sage development moving to github.   However, I think the release manager should be completely 100% in charge of where Sage dev happens.  It's much more important that we have a solid process for doing sage releases than anything else.  

Robert Bradshaw once wrote some sort of github <---> trac bot.  Maybe he can say something about that. 

Anyway what github have accomplished in the last few years is very impressive.

William
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
Sent from my massive iPhone 6 plus.

Bill Page

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 11:31:10 AM1/11/16
to sage-devel, Robert Bradshaw
On 11 January 2016 at 11:26, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth I'm highly supportive of Sage development moving to
> github.
>...
> Anyway what github have accomplished in the last few years is very
> impressive.
>

+1

Volker Braun

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 1:12:09 PM1/11/16
to sage-devel
As William already said, there is the github<->trac bot. Even without that, you can just copy branches over. So if you want to do the review on github and then stick it into trac thats easy to do.

But if you want to use the github issue tracker then that wouldn't work as easily. I don't think we even can import our current trac database, not to mention that some fields (e.g. Reviewer) are missing.

I also think that one of the nice features of the current workflow is that ticket information is summarized in the merge commit. If you use github's merge button then it won't be there, making the history more difficult to understand.

Also there is no comparable free CI to our buildbot instance, e.g. travis-ci doesn't have any platform diversity (ok, the paid version also has OSX in addition to their linux docker instance).

kcrisman

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 1:43:14 PM1/11/16
to sage-devel



But if you want to use the github issue tracker then that wouldn't work as easily. I don't think we even can import our current trac database, not to mention that some fields (e.g. Reviewer) are missing.


There's also the non-trivial (though not blocker, probably) issue that zillions of links to trac.sagemath.org would instantly be obsolete, and we'd be dependent upon a private company to maintain our bug tracker - one which might not be easily recreatable in the event GH gets bought or they go out of business or the service is taken down for whatever reason.

On a curiosity note, would GH be able to import the many cross-references within Trac itself to its native xref link creation?  (I mean things like the [comment:56:ticket:100 this link to a really vital comment] and #12345 syntax, presumably those are themselves some kind of plugin to Trac.)

- kcrisman

William Stein

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 1:53:05 PM1/11/16
to sage-devel
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, kcrisman <kcri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> But if you want to use the github issue tracker then that wouldn't work as
>> easily. I don't think we even can import our current trac database, not to
>> mention that some fields (e.g. Reviewer) are missing.
>>
>
> There's also the non-trivial (though not blocker, probably) issue that
> zillions of links to trac.sagemath.org would instantly be obsolete,

No. We wouldn't shut down running trac for a long, long time.

> and we'd
> be dependent upon a private company to maintain our bug tracker - one which
> might not be easily recreatable in the event GH gets bought or they go out
> of business or the service is taken down for whatever reason.

Nothing is black and white like you make it out above. It's a
tradeoff. Having used GH, it's definitely way, way more than worth
that tradeoff. Not making this tradeoff could easily lead to the
death of Sage, since Sage development is definitely WAY WAY too hard
and full of friction. If somebody else came along with something like
Sage that used GH and provided a much more pleasant development
experience, the Sage project would be in very serious trouble.
Waiting until it is too late is no solution. I'm so glad that
certain people (not me!) had the foresight to switch away from
Mercurial!

> On a curiosity note, would GH be able to import the many cross-references
> within Trac itself to its native xref link creation? (I mean things like
> the [comment:56:ticket:100 this link to a really vital comment] and #12345
> syntax, presumably those are themselves some kind of plugin to Trac.)

GH is amazing at automatically cross referencing. As are the many
integrations, e.g. with gitter, slack, etc.

William

>
> - kcrisman
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
William (http://wstein.org)

William Stein

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 2:20:45 PM1/11/16
to sage-devel
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:52 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, kcrisman <kcri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But if you want to use the github issue tracker then that wouldn't work as
>>> easily. I don't think we even can import our current trac database, not to
>>> mention that some fields (e.g. Reviewer) are missing.
>>>
>>
>> There's also the non-trivial (though not blocker, probably) issue that
>> zillions of links to trac.sagemath.org would instantly be obsolete,
>
> No. We wouldn't shut down running trac for a long, long time.
>
>> and we'd
>> be dependent upon a private company to maintain our bug tracker - one which
>> might not be easily recreatable in the event GH gets bought or they go out
>> of business or the service is taken down for whatever reason.
>
> Nothing is black and white like you make it out above. It's a
> tradeoff. Having used GH, it's definitely way, way more than worth
> that tradeoff. Not making this tradeoff could easily lead to the
> death of Sage, since Sage development is definitely WAY WAY too hard
> and full of friction. If somebody else came along with something like
> Sage that used GH and provided a much more pleasant development
> experience, the Sage project would be in very serious trouble.
> Waiting until it is too late is no solution. I'm so glad that
> certain people (not me!) had the foresight to switch away from
> Mercurial!

Following up on this, that we don't fully support people doing
development for Sage by creating independent pip-installable packages
(which depend on sage) is a *major* point of friction for our project.
The sage dev process is very heavy and confusing compared to what it
should be. This friction could kill us.

William



--
William (http://wstein.org)

Jeroen Demeyer

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 2:25:32 PM1/11/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
On 2016-01-11 17:26, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For what it is worth I'm highly supportive of Sage development moving to
> github.

I like trac (especially the way Sage uses it) a lot better than github.

What I mostly dislike about github is that "issues" and "pull requests"
are different things. I very much prefer the trac model where you create
a ticket, discuss things, then have multiple people work together on a
branch all on the same page. With github, it sometimes happens that you
have one issue and several pull requests by different people which are
all about the same thing. I get lost more easily in the github forest.

Another useful thing is that everything on trac is in one git tree. I
can do "git fetch" and have all tickets ready to check out without any
hassle. I don't know if you can easily checkout a pull request from github.

Finally a stupid thing: I don't get why github discussions don't have a
"reply" button.

I must admit that I don't use github that heavily, so maybe there are
things that I am missing.


Jeroen.

Volker Braun

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 2:39:04 PM1/11/16
to sage-devel
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:20:45 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
Following up on this, that we don't fully support people doing
development for Sage by creating independent pip-installable packages 

Where is the problem, I did that before and it works just fine. 

Of course sage isn't on pypi so you can't auto-download it as a dependency, but then its doubtful that this would work anyways. There are way too may specialized shared-library dependencies, and if there is one thing that really sucks then that's (pip,npm,rvm,...)-packages that start compiling gobs of third-party C/C++ code when installing. Neither is pip/wheel/... made for distributing binaries of third-party code. So realistically there should always be a "sage runtime" to compile the dependencies before installing Sage-the-python-library. But you can just use pip to install packages depending on Sage on top of that, no problem.

William Stein

unread,
Jan 11, 2016, 3:04:00 PM1/11/16
to sage-devel
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:20:45 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
>>
>> Following up on this, that we don't fully support people doing
>> development for Sage by creating independent pip-installable packages
>
>
> Where is the problem, I did that before and it works just fine.

Technically there is no problem. The problem is mostly one of
documentation and culture. How many sage dependent packages are on
pypi?

>
> Of course sage isn't on pypi so you can't auto-download it as a dependency,
> but then its doubtful that this would work anyways. There are way too may
> specialized shared-library dependencies, and if there is one thing that
> really sucks then that's (pip,npm,rvm,...)-packages that start compiling
> gobs of third-party C/C++ code when installing. Neither is pip/wheel/...
> made for distributing binaries of third-party code. So realistically there
> should always be a "sage runtime" to compile the dependencies before
> installing Sage-the-python-library. But you can just use pip to install
> packages depending on Sage on top of that, no problem.

Yes, the latter. We could have a simple dependency, e.g., "sagelib"
or something, that pip pulls in, and it simply checks that sage is
installed, and if not, explains the situation. Then in a few years
when I prove you wrong regarding "you can't auto-download it as a
dependency, but then its doubtful that this would work anyways." then
we can replace that with sage itself.

William

William Stein

unread,
Jan 15, 2016, 10:00:57 AM1/15/16
to sage-devel

Jeroen Demeyer

unread,
Jan 15, 2016, 1:10:36 PM1/15/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
On 2016-01-15 16:00, William Stein wrote:
> Why Python moved to github:
>
> http://www.snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move-python-to-github<http://www.snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move-python-to-github#toc_3>

It seems to boil down to "we use GitHub because everybody uses GitHub".
I see the point, but I would certainly miss Trac :-(

William Stein

unread,
Jan 15, 2016, 1:29:05 PM1/15/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
That was the argument for github versus gitlab.  It was  not the argument for switching away from hosting their own infrastructure. 

 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--

Vincent Delecroix

unread,
Jan 15, 2016, 1:45:23 PM1/15/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
On 15/01/16 15:29, William Stein wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-01-15 16:00, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Why Python moved to github:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move-python-to-github
>>> <
>>> http://www.snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move-python-to-github#toc_3
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> It seems to boil down to "we use GitHub because everybody uses GitHub". I
>> see the point, but I would certainly miss Trac
>
>
>
> That was the argument for github versus gitlab. It was not the argument
> for switching away from hosting their own infrastructure.

Their infrastructure was terrible. This is not the case of Sage. It is
not clear to me what would be better with github? Does anybody has a
serious proposal for a github workflow? If you do so, then open a trac
ticket with it! I only see a potential increase of the number of pull
requests. Which would actually be bad since we have a lot of pending
tickets.

Doing as "Guido says" or "as everybody does" is by far the worse
arguments I can imagine. And I agreed with something in the post: just
pay attention to people who are clearly willing to do the job.

Vincent

Ralf Stephan

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 2:15:52 AM1/16/16
to sage-devel
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:25:32 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
What I mostly dislike about github is that "issues" and "pull requests"
are different things. I very much prefer the trac model where you create
a ticket, discuss things, then have multiple people work together on a
branch all on the same page. With github, it sometimes happens that you
have one issue and several pull requests by different people which are
all about the same thing. I get lost more easily in the github forest.
On the other hand you can unsubscribe from each of these branches of
conversation. Also, since a new code branch is a separate pull request
the old branch stays visible until it's explicitly closed. It's up to you to add
# links if you want. Moreover, backlinks from any of the conversation branches
are shown automatically ("user referenced this pull request 5 days ago").

Another useful thing is that everything on trac is in one git tree. I
can do "git fetch" and have all tickets ready to check out without any
hassle. I don't know if you can easily checkout a pull request from github.
Of course you can.
 
Finally a stupid thing: I don't get why github discussions don't have a
"reply" button.
That is easily enhanced by custom scripts:
Can you do that with trac? Are there people interested, at all? 

Ralf Stephan

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 2:20:13 AM1/16/16
to sage-devel
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:45:23 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
And I agreed with something in the post: just
pay attention to people who are clearly willing to do the job.
Right. No one in this thread has even looked at the original questions,
apparently. I was explicitly not proposing moving completely to github.

Ralf Stephan

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 3:46:21 AM1/16/16
to sage-devel
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:45:23 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
I only see a potential increase of the number of pull
requests. Which would actually be bad since we have a lot of pending 
tickets.

 You're assuming that tickets are still pending only because of the number
of tickets. This is wrong. They are pending for various reasons, for example
because there is no matching reviewer. In what way is having more tickets
bad, then? You will only increase matches and so, contributions. No one
will punish anyone for having more tickets open. They will only increase the
code available.

Jeroen Demeyer

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 5:47:25 AM1/16/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
On 2016-01-16 08:15, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> Another useful thing is that everything on trac is in one git tree. I
> can do "git fetch" and have all tickets ready to check out without any
> hassle. I don't know if you can easily checkout a pull request from
> github.
>
> Of course you can.
Please tell me how! I want this feature.

Jeroen Demeyer

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 5:50:41 AM1/16/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
On 2016-01-16 08:15, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> On the other hand you can unsubscribe from each of these branches of
> conversation. Also, since a new code branch is a separate pull request
> the old branch stays visible until it's explicitly closed. It's up to
> you to add
> # links if you want. Moreover, backlinks from any of the conversation
> branches
> are shown automatically ("user referenced this pull request 5 days ago
> <https://github.com/symengine/symengine/pull/752#ref-issue-123534774>").

Adding links isn't nearly as practical as just having the discussion on
one page in the first place.

Ralf Stephan

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 8:29:23 AM1/16/16
to sage-devel

Jeroen Demeyer

unread,
Jan 16, 2016, 8:40:09 AM1/16/16
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
On 2016-01-16 14:29, Ralf Stephan wrote:
> https://gist.github.com/piscisaureus/3342247

Sorry, but something which involves manually editing config files is not
"easily checkout a pull request".

But at least it works.

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 5:41:46 AM12/10/20
to sage-devel
Dear all,

I'm resurrecting this thread, as the costs of the currect setup of trac hosted on Google Cloud Compute are prohibitive, at the current rate we are spending over US$4500 per year on it.

For trac+wiki+zulip: December 2019 – December 2020 (forecasted total cost)  $4,644.67

These are paid by UW's hosted Sage Foundation, which is projected to run out of money soon.
We've started OpenCollective and GitHub sponsoring, but the rate the donations coming in there would only suffices for perhaps 25-30% of this figure.

Options:

  1. find money
  2. find cheaper (ideally, free, based in an academic institution) provider
  3. migrate to GitHub or another (semi)gratis platform, e.g. GitLab, sw.ht, etc.
Savings also may be made by re-hosting zulip and wiki somewhere else.
They should be very easy to move I suppose.

Dima

David Roe

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 5:49:34 AM12/10/20
to sage-devel
For Zulip, zulipchat.com provides free hosting for open source projects.  I'm fairly confident that we could export our history and import it to a new organization there fairly easily, if there's a consensus to do so.
David

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.

Vincent Delecroix

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 5:50:04 AM12/10/20
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
All the services (= trac + wiki + zulip) could plausibly be hosted
by CNRS in France. There are dedicated servers for this purpose. If
it is accepted, the institute will support the cost.

I am available to open the server and discuss with the institute.
However, I won't have time to do any work on the migration.

Best
Vincent

Le 10/12/2020 à 11:41, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
> Dear all,
>
> I'm resurrecting this thread, as the costs of the currect setup of trac
> hosted on Google Cloud Compute are prohibitive, at the current rate we are
> spending over US$4500 per year on it.
>
> For trac+wiki+zulip: December 2019 – December 2020 (forecasted total cost)
> $4,644.67
>
> These are paid by UW's hosted Sage Foundation, which is projected to run
> out of money soon.
> We've started OpenCollective and GitHub sponsoring, but the rate the
> donations coming in there would only suffices for perhaps 25-30% of this
> figure.
>
> Options:
>
>
> 1. find money
> 2. find cheaper (ideally, free, based in an academic institution)
> provider
> 3. migrate to GitHub or another (semi)gratis platform, e.g. GitLab,

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 5:54:18 AM12/10/20
to sage-devel
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:50 AM Vincent Delecroix
<20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All the services (= trac + wiki + zulip) could plausibly be hosted
> by CNRS in France. There are dedicated servers for this purpose. If
> it is accepted, the institute will support the cost.
>
> I am available to open the server and discuss with the institute.
> However, I won't have time to do any work on the migration.

How reliable are they? Needless to say, something that goes down and
stays down for a week in August (vacation!)
is not what we can agree to.

Are they willing to grant root access to outside persons? (This is
another deal-breaker)

Dima
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/5bb98aee-614b-f391-08e4-1661d8540a87%40gmail.com.

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 6:06:06 AM12/10/20
to sage-devel
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM David Roe <roed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For Zulip, zulipchat.com provides free hosting for open source projects. I'm fairly confident that we could export our history and import it to a new organization there fairly easily, if there's a consensus to do so.

I don't think we even need a consensus for this. Lack of funds is a
sufficient reason to migrate.
(apart from the history, account data is important...)

We then can point zulip.sagemath.org to the appropriate url at zulipchat.com

Dima
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3DB6GQKi07kr%2BamOgh9xBqoowy57ZxSNF1HvwULCLvm_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Vincent Delecroix

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 6:06:33 AM12/10/20
to sage-...@googlegroups.com
Le 10/12/2020 à 11:54, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:50 AM Vincent Delecroix
> <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All the services (= trac + wiki + zulip) could plausibly be hosted
>> by CNRS in France. There are dedicated servers for this purpose. If
>> it is accepted, the institute will support the cost.
>>
>> I am available to open the server and discuss with the institute.
>> However, I won't have time to do any work on the migration.
>
> How reliable are they? Needless to say, something that goes down and
> stays down for a week in August (vacation!)
> is not what we can agree to.

Never had a problem, even in August. Though it does not mean much.

> Are they willing to grant root access to outside persons? (This is
> another deal-breaker)

This needs to go through administrative form filling. But it should
be doable.

Best
Vincent

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 6:19:34 AM12/10/20
to sage-devel
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:06 AM Vincent Delecroix
<20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 10/12/2020 à 11:54, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:50 AM Vincent Delecroix
> > <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> All the services (= trac + wiki + zulip) could plausibly be hosted
> >> by CNRS in France. There are dedicated servers for this purpose. If
> >> it is accepted, the institute will support the cost.
> >>
> >> I am available to open the server and discuss with the institute.
> >> However, I won't have time to do any work on the migration.
> >
> > How reliable are they? Needless to say, something that goes down and
> > stays down for a week in August (vacation!)
> > is not what we can agree to.
>
> Never had a problem, even in August. Though it does not mean much.
>
> > Are they willing to grant root access to outside persons? (This is
> > another deal-breaker)
>
> This needs to go through administrative form filling. But it should
> be doable.
>
How about starting down this road immediately, and see what we get in
the form of access
and hardware+bandwidth?

I suppose we can always utilise it for something else, less
mission-critical, e.g. as a dedicated
GitLab CI runner.

Dima





> Best
> Vincent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/66b1c03e-ee9a-44d0-a9f8-8305b2f085b9%40gmail.com.

David Roe

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 6:37:41 AM12/10/20
to sage-devel
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:06 AM Dima Pasechnik <dim...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM David Roe <roed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For Zulip, zulipchat.com provides free hosting for open source projects.  I'm fairly confident that we could export our history and import it to a new organization there fairly easily, if there's a consensus to do so.

I don't think we even need a consensus for this. Lack of funds is a
sufficient reason to migrate.
(apart from the history, account data is important...)

We then can point zulip.sagemath.org to the appropriate url at zulipchat.com

I've created sagemath.zulipchat.com and requested sponsorship as an open source project.   I exported our current Zulip history into a tarball as a test.  We probably want to wait until the current Sage Days is over to complete the migration so there's no disruption (the traffic is low enough that I'll probably pick a convenient time to deactivate it for a day, port the history over to zulipchat.com and then invite all our current users to the new organization).
David

Samuel Lelievre

unread,
Dec 10, 2020, 10:19:40 PM12/10/20
to sage-devel
2020-12-10 11:37:41 UTC, David Roe:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:06 AM Dima Pasechnik:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM David Roe:
> > >
> > > For Zulip, zulipchat.com provides free hosting for open source projects.
> > > I'm fairly confident that we could export our history and import it to
> > > a new organization there fairly easily, if there's a consensus to do so.
> >
> > I don't think we even need a consensus for this. Lack of funds
> > is a sufficient reason to migrate.
> > (apart from the history, account data is important...)
> >
> > We then can point zulip.sagemath.org to the appropriate url at zulipchat.com
>
> I've created sagemath.zulipchat.com and requested sponsorship
> as an open source project. I exported our current Zulip history
> into a tarball as a test. We probably want to wait until the current
> Sage Days is over to complete the migration so there's no disruption
> (the traffic is low enough that I'll probably pick a convenient time
> to deactivate it for a day, port the history over to zulipchat.com
> and then invite all our current users to the new organization).

Is there a way to retain the zulip.sagemath.org url
while hosting at zulipchat.com?

Sébastien Labbé

unread,
Dec 11, 2020, 2:56:48 AM12/11/20
to sage-devel
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 11:54:18 AM UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:50 AM Vincent Delecroix
<20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All the services (= trac + wiki + zulip) could plausibly be hosted
> by CNRS in France. There are dedicated servers for this purpose. If
> it is accepted, the institute will support the cost.
>
> I am available to open the server and discuss with the institute.
> However, I won't have time to do any work on the migration.

How reliable are they? Needless to say, something that goes down and
stays down for a week in August (vacation!)
is not what we can agree to.


Where is the ask.sagemath.org hosted? Was it down in August in recent years?

Sébastien
 

Samuel Lelièvre

unread,
Dec 11, 2020, 6:50:22 AM12/11/20
to Sage-devel
Le ven. 11 déc. 2020 à 08:56, Sébastien Labbé:
>
> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 11:54:18 AM UTC+1 Dima:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:50 AM Vincent Delecroix:
>> >
>> > All the services (= trac + wiki + zulip) could plausibly be hosted
>> > by CNRS in France. There are dedicated servers for this purpose. If
>> > it is accepted, the institute will support the cost.
>> >
>> > I am available to open the server and discuss with the institute.
>> > However, I won't have time to do any work on the migration.
>>
>> How reliable are they? Needless to say, something that goes down and
>> stays down for a week in August (vacation!)
>> is not what we can agree to.
>>
>
> Where is the ask.sagemath.org hosted? Was it down in August in recent years?
>
> Sébastien

Ask Sage was hosted on Google Cloud until late June 2014,
then migrated to Ohio State University servers thanks to
Niles Johnson. It is in the process of migrating to France
thanks to Vincent Delecroix. Even though things slow down
in France in August, there's always a hotline for computing
and hosting, so I would not worry about serious down time.

David Roe

unread,
Jan 7, 2021, 3:13:25 PM1/7/21
to sage-devel
It took me longer than I wanted, but I've ported over all of our history and accounts to sagemath.zulipchat.com.  For security reasons the passwords haven't been migrated, so you'll need to use the password reset link (let me know if you don't remember what email you used).

I've been struggling with the google cloud interface and can't figure out how to shut down the VM that was running Zulip.  Dima, since you started the thread about costs, do you know how to do this?  Anyone else?

As for the url, I assume it should be possible to set up a redirect, but I don't have easy access to our DNS records.
David

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Jan 7, 2021, 3:23:40 PM1/7/21
to sage-devel, Harald Schilly
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:13 PM David Roe <roed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:19 PM Samuel Lelievre <samuel....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2020-12-10 11:37:41 UTC, David Roe:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:06 AM Dima Pasechnik:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM David Roe:
>> > > >
>> > > > For Zulip, zulipchat.com provides free hosting for open source projects.
>> > > > I'm fairly confident that we could export our history and import it to
>> > > > a new organization there fairly easily, if there's a consensus to do so.
>> > >
>> > > I don't think we even need a consensus for this. Lack of funds
>> > > is a sufficient reason to migrate.
>> > > (apart from the history, account data is important...)
>> > >
>> > > We then can point zulip.sagemath.org to the appropriate url at zulipchat.com
>> >
>> > I've created sagemath.zulipchat.com and requested sponsorship
>> > as an open source project. I exported our current Zulip history
>> > into a tarball as a test. We probably want to wait until the current
>> > Sage Days is over to complete the migration so there's no disruption
>> > (the traffic is low enough that I'll probably pick a convenient time
>> > to deactivate it for a day, port the history over to zulipchat.com
>> > and then invite all our current users to the new organization).
>>
>> Is there a way to retain the zulip.sagemath.org url
>> while hosting at zulipchat.com?
>
>
> It took me longer than I wanted, but I've ported over all of our history and accounts to sagemath.zulipchat.com. For security reasons the passwords haven't been migrated, so you'll need to use the password reset link (let me know if you don't remember what email you used).
>
> I've been struggling with the google cloud interface and can't figure out how to shut down the VM that was running Zulip. Dima, since you started the thread about costs, do you know how to do this? Anyone else?

Great, thanks.
OK, the VM is shut down now. I have not yet deleted the VM, but will
do, once we are happy that everything is properly saved etc.
>
> As for the url, I assume it should be possible to set up a redirect, but I don't have easy access to our DNS records.

Harald - can you take care of this?

Cheers
Dima

> David
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/05a659d7-48c6-4fd0-9ead-fa48701c2190n%40googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBJ8qXH8nrVv_%3DTS3fL9G7TztiWBtfXSqJY5jUL9n7XA%40mail.gmail.com.

Harald Schilly

unread,
Jan 7, 2021, 3:30:52 PM1/7/21
to Dima Pasechnik, sage-devel
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 PM Dima Pasechnik <dim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harald - can you take care of this?
>

Uhm, what's happening? Could someone please summarize this for me?

David Roe

unread,
Jan 7, 2021, 3:47:36 PM1/7/21
to sage-devel, Dima Pasechnik
zulip.sagemath.org used to point to a google virtual machine.  We'd like it to redirect to sagemath.zulipchat.org so that people looking for the Zulip server are sent to the right place.
David
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.

Isuru Fernando

unread,
Jan 7, 2021, 3:49:50 PM1/7/21
to sage-devel, Dima Pasechnik
It should be sagemath.zulipchat.com right? (Instead of .org)

Isuru

David Roe

unread,
Jan 7, 2021, 3:50:49 PM1/7/21
to sage-devel, Dima Pasechnik
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:49 PM Isuru Fernando <isu...@gmail.com> wrote:
It should be sagemath.zulipchat.com right? (Instead of .org)

Yes, sorry for the typo!
David

Tobia...@gmx.de

unread,
Jan 12, 2021, 5:32:59 PM1/12/21
to sage-devel

For what's worth, + 1 for migrating to github.

The interface is cleaner, it has many more features and integrations, and is more active which could attract more contributions. There are a few scripts/tools that allow to migrate from trac to github. But most of them are unmaintained for a few years already, so I'm not sure if they still work (which should be taken as a sign that one should migrate sooner than later).

Samuel Lelièvre

unread,
Jan 18, 2021, 10:52:45 AM1/18/21
to Sage-devel
Regarding Zulip, the new hosting has some limitations.

For example, trying to access

https://sagemath.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/271072-padics/topic/p-adic.20help.20request.20on.20sage-support

the following information gets displayed:

Some older messages are unavailable. Upgrade
your organization to access your full message history.

Not sure whether this means older messages are stored
but not displayed, or not stored at all. --Samuel

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Jan 18, 2021, 12:33:34 PM1/18/21
to sage-devel
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:52 PM Samuel Lelièvre
<samuel....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding Zulip, the new hosting has some limitations.
>
> For example, trying to access
>
> https://sagemath.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/271072-padics/topic/p-adic.20help.20request.20on.20sage-support
>
> the following information gets displayed:
>
> Some older messages are unavailable. Upgrade
> your organization to access your full message history.
>
> Not sure whether this means older messages are stored


This might have been David's oversight as he moved GCE-hosted zulip to
the new, free, hosting.
I've asked him to look this up.

> but not displayed, or not stored at all. --Samuel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAEcArF3h%3DQduPMD41G9iY2gMYtBb-vs6S19y_BjPXaWtARmzqA%40mail.gmail.com.

David Roe

unread,
Jan 18, 2021, 4:37:56 PM1/18/21
to sage-devel
There was an oversight in upgrading us to a sponsored account as an open source organization.  They've done so now; let me know if you observe any similar issues going forward.
David

E. Madison Bray

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 11:00:18 AM3/10/21
to sage-devel
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:33 PM Tobia...@gmx.de <Tobia...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> For what's worth, + 1 for migrating to github.
>
> The interface is cleaner, it has many more features and integrations, and is more active which could attract more contributions. There are a few scripts/tools that allow to migrate from trac to github. But most of them are unmaintained for a few years already, so I'm not sure if they still work (which should be taken as a sign that one should migrate sooner than later).

In 2019 Julian Rüth and I, with the help of some others, already put
in some effort to set up an organization for SageMath on GitLab:
https://gitlab.com/sagemath

Between GitHub and GitLab, we felt that the latter would be more
acceptable to the broader Sage community. We also implemented a bot
that can mirror GitLab merge requests as Trac tickets, though it's
been in need of troubleshooting for a while.

This was also done before the advent of GitHub Actions, and the
ability to provide custom CI runners for GitLab Pipelines seemed
advantageous, since we could maintain our own fleet of runners, be it
on Sage developers' personal machines (if they are generous enough to
host them) or any conceivable constellation of cloud computing
platforms.

In practice this has gained little traction, in part due to lack of
advertising. The GitLab Runner solution also proved a bit troublesome
to maintain, as it required some constant attention to make sure there
were always working runners available. I tried to keep that up for a
while myself, but have had other obligations.

In the meantime Matthias and others have been doing really interesting
things with GitHub Actions for our CI. For the time being GitHub is
being *very* generous with computing time available to open source
projects. Though I fear it's only a matter of time before Microsoft's
investors come banging on the door, and they start putting in bigger
limits for free users (as happened with Travis CI).

I would still prefer the GitLab approach for a myriad of reasons, or a
hybrid approach at least for the GitHub Actions stuff. It just needs
to be better advertised, and there needs to be better instructions for
where users and potential developers should go to open issues.

As for the wiki I've always been in favor of dropping Moin Wiki and
migrating the existing wiki pages to Trac (or to GitLab). Someone
just has to do it, as is always the problem.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/e2c237d2-b8aa-4002-8fb4-edeaf03a8d3fn%40googlegroups.com.

Dima Pasechnik

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 5:11:34 AM3/11/21
to sage-devel
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 4:00 PM E. Madison Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:33 PM Tobia...@gmx.de <Tobia...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what's worth, + 1 for migrating to github.
> >
> > The interface is cleaner, it has many more features and integrations, and is more active which could attract more contributions. There are a few scripts/tools that allow to migrate from trac to github. But most of them are unmaintained for a few years already, so I'm not sure if they still work (which should be taken as a sign that one should migrate sooner than later).
>
> In 2019 Julian Rüth and I, with the help of some others, already put
> in some effort to set up an organization for SageMath on GitLab:
> https://gitlab.com/sagemath
>
> Between GitHub and GitLab, we felt that the latter would be more
> acceptable to the broader Sage community. We also implemented a bot
> that can mirror GitLab merge requests as Trac tickets, though it's
> been in need of troubleshooting for a while.
>
> This was also done before the advent of GitHub Actions, and the
> ability to provide custom CI runners for GitLab Pipelines seemed
> advantageous, since we could maintain our own fleet of runners, be it
> on Sage developers' personal machines (if they are generous enough to
> host them) or any conceivable constellation of cloud computing
> platforms.
>
> In practice this has gained little traction, in part due to lack of
> advertising. The GitLab Runner solution also proved a bit troublesome
> to maintain, a