| valerio.bozzolan | |
| Oct 10 2022, 4:35 PM |
| F35567114: Screen Shot 2022-10-13 at 2.40.32 PM.png | |
| Oct 13 2022, 8:44 PM |
Hi all,
I'm confused since I tried to use Striker to create a Diffusion repository:
Then it created a GitLab repository (!)
Are you aware of that?
Context: I then deleted the GitLab repository, since I'm not interested in that, since I already can create GitLab repositories on my own. What I cannot do, is: create a Diffusion repository. A Diffusion repo is useful to me, since then I can modify its URL to observe my already existing GitLab repository.
Thank you for your thoughts
| Subject | Repo | Branch | Lines +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| striker: Bump container version to 2022-10-03-154059-production | operations/puppet | production | +2 -2 |
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | Feature | None | T316295 Connect Striker created GitLab projects with Striker created Phabricator projects | ||
| Resolved | bd808 | T296893 Replace Diffusion integration with Gitlab integration in Striker (toolsadmin) | |||
| Resolved | BUG REPORT | Pintoch | T320438 Fix misleading "Diffusion" creation in Striker (actually creates on GitLab) |
The label here is out of sync with the rest of the code. The label was fixed in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/labs/striker/+/837201, but that change has not yet been deployed to the production service.
A Diffusion repo is useful to me, since then I can modify its URL to observe my already existing GitLab repository.
T317345: Mirror Striker managed GitLab repos in Diffusion will be the supported solution for this, but that solution will not support making mirrors of arbitrary gitlab repos. It will only create mirrors for repos that are also created by Striker.
OK thanks, understood.
Having said that I'm OK in deleting Phabricator mirrors, but not now, since AFAIK typing Ref T123 from a GitLab commit doesn't result in a notification in the related Phabricator Task.
Since people should not rush to migrate to GitLab and fix the bots, I think it should be better to allow Diffusion repositories in observe mode, still for some time. What do you think about?
(Edited: I mean, at the moment it should be OK to request an observed Diffusion repo, asking it manually to Diffusion administrators.)
I purposefully kept Diffusion mirrors of all of the repos that I migrated to GitLab for T315706: Migrate existing Striker created Diffusion repos to GitLab. The irc discussions that lead to T317345: Mirror Striker managed GitLab repos in Diffusion were related to easy of linking phabricator tasks and commits.
Since people should not rush to migrate to GitLab and fix the bots, I think it should be better to allow Diffusion repositories in observe mode, still for some time. What do you think about?
(Edited: I mean, at the moment it should be OK to request an observed Diffusion repo, asking it manually to Diffusion administrators.)
This is a question for others. This task is currently scoped to the Striker tool and not a discussion with the members of the release engineering team or others who take care of Diffusion project requests. I don't think however that it will be controversial to continue to support requests for Diffusion mirrors of repos hosted on Gerrit, GitLab, or other Wikimedia related git primary hosts in the near term.
I just noticed that in T296893: Replace Diffusion integration with Gitlab integration in Striker (toolsadmin) I said that Striker was blocking removal of Diffusion. That was not the correct component to mention; it was blocking the removal of Differential (code review). I have updated the task description to reflect this.
Change 842533 had a related patch set uploaded (by BryanDavis; author: Bryan Davis):
[operations/puppet@production] striker: Bump container version to 2022-10-03-154059-production
Change 842533 merged by Andrew Bogott:
[operations/puppet@production] striker: Bump container version to 2022-10-03-154059-production
The fix from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/labs/striker/+/837201 that @Pintoch had contributed previously has now been deployed.
