Hello devs and list lurkers
You all might have noticed the hickups we recently had with our Trac platform. Our Trac site was under heavy attack from spammers which put high load on the system and flooded the database with garbage. None of us really is a Trac expert and we failed at bringing the necessary measures in place to fight the spamming an to clean up the mess they caused.
Adam, our volunteer admin who donated his private server for hosting the Trac site wants to resign from his duties which is fair and understandable. As a first action we deactivated user registration while we're looking for alternatives.
That said, we're now looking at possible replacements for Trac or a successor for Adam who is willing to take the burden of hosting that crap. The most obvious - and already often requested - option is to migrate the tickets and the wiki pages into github. I already tested the import through the github API and that's a feasible option. But of course there are downsides: issue IDs cannot be kept and would be re-assigned. Also one cannot add tickets and comments with a date in the past.
From the 6.5K tickets we have in the database, there are ~ 200 open. I
guess migrating these plus the resolved ones back to milestone 1.0.0 into github issues would give us a clean restart without loosing to much valuable data and - most importantly - without having to setup, host and protect our own tracker system.
Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
Many thanks, Thomas
Hi Thomas, im absolutely in favor of moving to github issues and wiki. Even if that means losing some data in the migration. It would make the whole project more integrated. I think everyone with open tickets would understand.
Cor
I'm willing to offer to host your Trac and keep spammers at bay -- it's part of my regular job duties already, what's another server? -- but I think the project as a whole is better off moving more onto the Github platform. There'll be some short term pain but you'll get a lot more long-term benefit from the really active Github community.
- R.
[__ Robert Sheldon [__ No Problem [__ Information technology support and services [__ (530) 575-0278
On 2016-02-23 12:12, Thomas Bruederli wrote:
Hello devs and list lurkers
You all might have noticed the hickups we recently had with our Trac platform. Our Trac site was under heavy attack from spammers which put high load on the system and flooded the database with garbage. None of us really is a Trac expert and we failed at bringing the necessary measures in place to fight the spamming an to clean up the mess they caused.
Adam, our volunteer admin who donated his private server for hosting the Trac site wants to resign from his duties which is fair and understandable. As a first action we deactivated user registration while we're looking for alternatives.
That said, we're now looking at possible replacements for Trac or a successor for Adam who is willing to take the burden of hosting that crap. The most obvious - and already often requested - option is to migrate the tickets and the wiki pages into github. I already tested the import through the github API and that's a feasible option. But of course there are downsides: issue IDs cannot be kept and would be re-assigned. Also one cannot add tickets and comments with a date in the past.
From the 6.5K tickets we have in the database, there are ~ 200 open. I guess migrating these plus the resolved ones back to milestone 1.0.0 into github issues would give us a clean restart without loosing to much valuable data and - most importantly - without having to setup, host and protect our own tracker system.
Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
Many thanks, Thomas _______________________________________________ Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
On 02/23/2016 09:12 PM, Thomas Bruederli wrote:
Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
We put ticket IDs in code comments and I found myself from time to time reading the old tickets to understand better the idea behind the specific code part.
So, it would be really nice if we migrate all fixed tickets e.g. putting their old ID in subject line so we can search them.
If we don't migrate open tickets, a read-only copy of trac online for some time would be also nice, so we could simply select the open tickets we think are important and move them manually to github.
Has anyone evaluated the GitLab ticketing system? I know if maybe more of a distraction using GitHub and GitLab but they seem to have some nice ticketing features.
Thanks, -Scott Kidder
On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:02 AM, A.L.E.C wrote:
On 02/23/2016 09:12 PM, Thomas Bruederli wrote:
Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
We put ticket IDs in code comments and I found myself from time to time reading the old tickets to understand better the idea behind the specific code part.
So, it would be really nice if we migrate all fixed tickets e.g. putting their old ID in subject line so we can search them.
If we don't migrate open tickets, a read-only copy of trac online for some time would be also nice, so we could simply select the open tickets we think are important and move them manually to github.
-- Aleksander 'A.L.E.C' Machniak Kolab Groupware Developer [http://kolab.org] Roundcube Webmail Developer [http://roundcube.net]
PGP: 19359DC1 @@ GG: 2275252 @@ WWW: http://alec.pl _______________________________________________ Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
Scott Kidder schreef op 2016-02-24 08:06:
Has anyone evaluated the GitLab ticketing system? I know if maybe more of a distraction using GitHub and GitLab but they seem to have some nice ticketing features.
Gitlab's ticket system is very similar to Github's one. We use Gitlab at work and AFAIK it also restarts issues from 1.
Given Github's more active developer community I would favor moving everything to Github, and keeping the old issue number in the subject or text body.
-Geert
if you have an issues about of Github track, you can see make a bugtracker called as "https://www.mantisbt.org/
It's a good tools for report issues and new ideas about your project. (and free)
2016-02-24 22:42 GMT+01:00 Geert Wirken geert@gwirken.nl:
Scott Kidder schreef op 2016-02-24 08:06:
Has anyone evaluated the GitLab ticketing system? I know if maybe more of
a distraction using GitHub and GitLab but they seem to have some nice ticketing features.
Gitlab's ticket system is very similar to Github's one. We use Gitlab at work and AFAIK it also restarts issues from 1.
Given Github's more active developer community I would favor moving everything to Github, and keeping the old issue number in the subject or text body.
-Geert
Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
Github is the way to go.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Riccardo Vianello etms51@gmail.com wrote:
if you have an issues about of Github track, you can see make a bugtracker called as "https://www.mantisbt.org/
It's a good tools for report issues and new ideas about your project. (and free)
2016-02-24 22:42 GMT+01:00 Geert Wirken geert@gwirken.nl:
Scott Kidder schreef op 2016-02-24 08:06:
Has anyone evaluated the GitLab ticketing system? I know if maybe more of
a distraction using GitHub and GitLab but they seem to have some nice ticketing features.
Gitlab's ticket system is very similar to Github's one. We use Gitlab at work and AFAIK it also restarts issues from 1.
Given Github's more active developer community I would favor moving everything to Github, and keeping the old issue number in the subject or text body.
-Geert
Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
On 24.02.2016, at 08:02, A.L.E.C alec@alec.pl wrote:
On 02/23/2016 09:12 PM, Thomas Bruederli wrote: Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
We put ticket IDs in code comments and I found myself from time to time reading the old tickets to understand better the idea behind the specific code part.
So, it would be really nice if we migrate all fixed tickets e.g. putting their old ID in subject line so we can search them.
Good point! The migration script I was playing around would add a reference to the old ticket ID into the ticket body. Turns out githubs search function also captures that. So finding closed issues by their old ID is possible.
If we don't migrate open tickets, a read-only copy of trac online for some time would be also nice, so we could simply select the open tickets we think are important and move them manually to github.
Migrating open tickets is the primary goal. For finding references to old tickets, running Trac in read-only mode could be an idea.
Or we maintain a simple web service redirecting old trac ticket urls to the new github issues using an ID map generated during migration.
~Thomas
Hello again and thanks for all your feedback!
@Rob, many thanks for your offer but only the cleaning out of the 1M mostly fake user profiles from the database would keep you or me busy for hours. Since everybody seems to be happy working with github, I guess we'll take the most obvious path. I'll reserve some time the upcoming weekend to migrate the active tickets into the Roundcube github project. Older tickets will probably go into a separate project just to serve as an archive.
I already activated the wiki feature at https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/wiki. We're now looking for volunteers to skim our Trac wiki and copy the pages which are still relevant into the Github wiki. I guess this has to be a manual process and is a good exercise to clean out all the old rubbish which doesn't apply anymore. So if anybody is willing to spend some time reviewing the wiki pages at http://trac.roundcube.net, please let us know.
Kind regards, Thomas
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Thomas Bruederli roundcube@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.02.2016, at 08:02, A.L.E.C alec@alec.pl wrote:
On 02/23/2016 09:12 PM, Thomas Bruederli wrote: Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
We put ticket IDs in code comments and I found myself from time to time reading the old tickets to understand better the idea behind the specific code part.
So, it would be really nice if we migrate all fixed tickets e.g. putting their old ID in subject line so we can search them.
Good point! The migration script I was playing around would add a reference to the old ticket ID into the ticket body. Turns out githubs search function also captures that. So finding closed issues by their old ID is possible.
If we don't migrate open tickets, a read-only copy of trac online for some time would be also nice, so we could simply select the open tickets we think are important and move them manually to github.
Migrating open tickets is the primary goal. For finding references to old tickets, running Trac in read-only mode could be an idea.
Or we maintain a simple web service redirecting old trac ticket urls to the new github issues using an ID map generated during migration.
~Thomas
This is great! I have a really big suggestion I'll propose as my first issue. ;)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Bruederli roundcube@gmail.com wrote:
Hello again and thanks for all your feedback!
@Rob, many thanks for your offer but only the cleaning out of the 1M mostly fake user profiles from the database would keep you or me busy for hours. Since everybody seems to be happy working with github, I guess we'll take the most obvious path. I'll reserve some time the upcoming weekend to migrate the active tickets into the Roundcube github project. Older tickets will probably go into a separate project just to serve as an archive.
I already activated the wiki feature at https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/wiki. We're now looking for volunteers to skim our Trac wiki and copy the pages which are still relevant into the Github wiki. I guess this has to be a manual process and is a good exercise to clean out all the old rubbish which doesn't apply anymore. So if anybody is willing to spend some time reviewing the wiki pages at http://trac.roundcube.net, please let us know.
Kind regards, Thomas
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Thomas Bruederli roundcube@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.02.2016, at 08:02, A.L.E.C alec@alec.pl wrote:
On 02/23/2016 09:12 PM, Thomas Bruederli wrote: Anyway, please raise your voice with suggestions, concerns or offers if you have experience with such a post-Trac situation.
We put ticket IDs in code comments and I found myself from time to time reading the old tickets to understand better the idea behind the specific code part.
So, it would be really nice if we migrate all fixed tickets e.g. putting their old ID in subject line so we can search them.
Good point! The migration script I was playing around would add a
reference to the old ticket ID into the ticket body. Turns out githubs search function also captures that. So finding closed issues by their old ID is possible.
If we don't migrate open tickets, a read-only copy of trac online for some time would be also nice, so we could simply select the open tickets we think are important and move them manually to github.
Migrating open tickets is the primary goal. For finding references to
old tickets, running Trac in read-only mode could be an idea.
Or we maintain a simple web service redirecting old trac ticket urls to
the new github issues using an ID map generated during migration.
~Thomas
Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
-
A.L.E.C -
cor＠xs4all.nl -
Geert Wirken -
John Manko -
Riccardo Vianello -
Rob at No Problem -
Robert Du Gaue -
Scott Kidder -
Thomas Bruederli -
Thomas Bruederli