Another suggestion for the Trac migration

[Christoph Zwerschke]

As already posted, one of the things that is hampering us for too long
already is the migration of our old Trac. We actually wanted to move to
SF to minimize the admin work, but it turned out to make more work as
expected, and I'm still doubt how faithful/useful the migrated tickets
and comments will be, i.e. whether the markup, authors, links to
revisions, versions, milestones etc. will be properly preserved.

We have ~2500 tickets, ~2000 for TG1 and ~500 for TG2. That looks much,
but if we look at the *active* tickets only, we're actually talking
about only ~130 tickets, ~30 for TG1 and ~100 for TG2. So why don't we
just forget about the old cruft and start with a plain slate? Most of it
has become irrelevant anyway and is only creating confusion now.

So my suggestion is that we create fresh Allura trackers for TG1, TG2
and TG3 on SF. We will then go through all still active tickets on the
old Trac and do a triage:

* simple -> do it immediately and close
* more complex -> manually enter them in Allura and close in Trac
* irrelevant, outdated, not reproducable etc. -> just close

In the last category, we could already clarify the tickets, add ideas
for solutions etc.

Once all tickets on the old Trac have been closed that way (I expect
this can be done in one or two weeks), I will copy the old Trac to
Florent's server where it can serve as a read-only reference.

What do you think about this idea?

-- Christoph

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Post by Christoph Zwerschke
* simple -> do it immediately and close
* more complex -> manually enter them in Allura and close in Trac
* irrelevant, outdated, not reproducable etc. -> just close
In the last category, we could already clarify the tickets, add ideas
for solutions etc.

I meant in the second category.

This would not only accelerate our SF migration, but also the
development. After we've gone through all open tickets that way, we
could immediately release TG 2.1.1.

-- Christoph

[Michael Pedersen]

I'm actually leaning towards a slightly different approach, but am not
invested in it.

What I was thinking of doing is simply migrating Trac to the latest and
greatest on the new server. We'll execute the switchover to the new server
before March 14, and have everything directed there.

Since we'll be on the latest Trac version, we an use it as is while we clean
up 1.1, 1.5, 2.0.4, and 2.1.1. After each release of each version, we can
re-evaluate the current status. If we can move to Allure easily at that
point, we set Trac to read only and move. If we're not able to easily move
yet, we continue using Trac.

What do you think? Is it worth the effort (I think it's even less effort
than your current plan, personally), or would you prefer to make the switch
now?

Post by Christoph Zwerschke
* simple -> do it immediately and close

Post by Christoph Zwerschke
* more complex -> manually enter them in Allura and close in Trac
* irrelevant, outdated, not reproducable etc. -> just close
In the last category, we could already clarify the tickets, add ideas
for solutions etc.

I meant in the second category.
This would not only accelerate our SF migration, but also the development.
After we've gone through all open tickets that way, we could immediately
release TG 2.1.1.
-- Christoph
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.

...

--
Michael J. Pedersen
My IM IDs: Jabber/***@icelus.tzo.com, ICQ/103345809, AIM/pedermj022171
Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/***@hotmail.com

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Post by Michael Pedersen
Since we'll be on the latest Trac version, we an use it as is while we
clean up 1.1, 1.5, 2.0.4, and 2.1.1. After each release of each version,
we can re-evaluate the current status. If we can move to Allure easily
at that point, we set Trac to read only and move. If we're not able to
easily move yet, we continue using Trac.
What do you think? Is it worth the effort (I think it's even less effort
than your current plan, personally), or would you prefer to make the
switch now?

My point is that if we start with a clean slate, there is nothing to
*move* i.e. we can start using Allura right now. It's probably not even
desirable to move all the closed tickets to Allura, even if that will be
possible later. Interesting for us are primarily the active tickets, and
triaging them and re-entering on Allura where necessary can easily be
managed by us in one or two weeks. Heck, I am willing to do this alone
in one day if nobody helps, just to end this drama. We need to screen
the active tickets anyway. After that, we can move the closed Trac
tickets to a read-only instance, just as an archive. Making it a
read-only archive also has the advantage that we don't need to set up
and care about authentication, spam protection etc. for the Trac.

-- Christoph

[Michael Pedersen]

I'm not about to leave you alone for it. I'll help. I'll start looking at
the 2.x tickets tonight.

Since we're going to go after this actively, I'm going to suggest we assign
tickets to ourselves as soon as we start looking at them, regardless of who
they are currently assigned to. Well, unless it's you, me, or someone else
who pops in and says they're working tickets.

Also, add a comment stating that you're working on it, in case it's an older
one that was assigned to you. Basically, make sure we know it's actively
being worked.

For actual development work, well, git changes things slightly. Do any dev
work on topical branch from the development branch, and we'll merge back to
master when we get a release done. For 2.0, we don't have that luxury, so
we'll just have to work off the branch-2.0 in git.

Post by Michael Pedersen
Since we'll be on the latest Trac version, we an use it as is while we

Post by Michael Pedersen
clean up 1.1, 1.5, 2.0.4, and 2.1.1. After each release of each version,
we can re-evaluate the current status. If we can move to Allure easily
at that point, we set Trac to read only and move. If we're not able to
easily move yet, we continue using Trac.
What do you think? Is it worth the effort (I think it's even less effort
than your current plan, personally), or would you prefer to make the
switch now?

My point is that if we start with a clean slate, there is nothing to *move*
i.e. we can start using Allura right now. It's probably not even desirable
to move all the closed tickets to Allura, even if that will be possible
later. Interesting for us are primarily the active tickets, and triaging
them and re-entering on Allura where necessary can easily be managed by us
in one or two weeks. Heck, I am willing to do this alone in one day if
nobody helps, just to end this drama. We need to screen the active tickets
anyway. After that, we can move the closed Trac tickets to a read-only
instance, just as an archive. Making it a read-only archive also has the
advantage that we don't need to set up and care about authentication, spam
protection etc. for the Trac.
-- Christoph
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.

...

--
Michael J. Pedersen
My IM IDs: Jabber/***@icelus.tzo.com, ICQ/103345809, AIM/pedermj022171
Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/***@hotmail.com

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Post by Michael Pedersen
I'm not about to leave you alone for it. I'll help. I'll start looking
at the 2.x tickets tonight.

Does that mean you agree with me that we should start on SF with a clean
plate? We could then create these new Allura trackers for TG1 and TG2
already this week and start moving active tickets from Trac there.

I did not hear opinions from anybody else, though. So if anybody has
objections, please raise them *now* and don't complain later!

On another note, we now have 3 different TG2 projects on SourceForge!

http://sourceforge.net/p/pylonsproject/tg2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears/home/

If it goes on like that we will create even more confusion than when TG2
moved to Bitbucket. So please, reach an agreement with Mark which is the
official one, and delete the other two.

-- Christoph

[Mark Ramm]

I have no objections to this approach.

As for the TG2 as sf.net location, I'm partial to /p/turbogears2/ but
can be persuaded by somebody with a strong argument/

--Mark Ramm

Post by Christoph Zwerschke

Post by Michael Pedersen
I'm not about to leave you alone for it. I'll help. I'll start looking
at the 2.x tickets tonight.

Does that mean you agree with me that we should start on SF with a clean
plate? We could then create these new Allura trackers for TG1 and TG2
already this week and start moving active tickets from Trac there.
I did not hear opinions from anybody else, though. So if anybody has
objections, please raise them *now* and don't complain later!
On another note, we now have 3 different TG2 projects on SourceForge!
http://sourceforge.net/p/pylonsproject/tg2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears/home/
If it goes on like that we will create even more confusion than when TG2
moved to Bitbucket. So please, reach an agreement with Mark which is the
official one, and delete the other two.
-- Christoph
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.

...

--
Mark Ramm-Christensen
email: mark at compoundthinking dot com
blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog

[Michael Pedersen]

That's where I'm uploading code to, so I'm going to vote for
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/ as the ultimate home for TG2.

I've not created a TG1 project, as I'm not even a good candidate for
discussing who should get access to the repo, never mind doing anything with
it.

Post by Mark Ramm
I have no objections to this approach.
As for the TG2 as sf.net location, I'm partial to /p/turbogears2/ but
can be persuaded by somebody with a strong argument/
--Mark Ramm

Post by Christoph Zwerschke

Post by Michael Pedersen
I'm not about to leave you alone for it. I'll help. I'll start looking
at the 2.x tickets tonight.

Does that mean you agree with me that we should start on SF with a clean
plate? We could then create these new Allura trackers for TG1 and TG2
already this week and start moving active tickets from Trac there.
I did not hear opinions from anybody else, though. So if anybody has
objections, please raise them *now* and don't complain later!
On another note, we now have 3 different TG2 projects on SourceForge!
http://sourceforge.net/p/pylonsproject/tg2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears/home/
If it goes on like that we will create even more confusion than when TG2
moved to Bitbucket. So please, reach an agreement with Mark which is the
official one, and delete the other two.
-- Christoph
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.

--
Mark Ramm-Christensen
email: mark at compoundthinking dot com
blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.

...

--
Michael J. Pedersen
My IM IDs: Jabber/***@icelus.tzo.com, ICQ/103345809, AIM/pedermj022171
Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/***@hotmail.com

[Ken Kuhlman]

Post by Michael Pedersen

Post by Christoph Zwerschke
I did not hear opinions from anybody else, though. So if anybody has
objections, please raise them *now* and don't complain later!

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I can help move the open 1.x
tickets over to Allura.

Post by Michael Pedersen

Post by Christoph Zwerschke
On another note, we now have 3 different TG2 projects on SourceForge!
http://sourceforge.net/p/pylonsproject/tg2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears/home/

This one isn't needed either:
https://sourceforge.net/p/pylonsproject/tg1/home/

IMHO, tg 1 & 2 should be seperate projects on SF, so
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears/home/ &
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/ should be kept for their
respective use.

Post by Michael Pedersen
That's where I'm uploading code to, so I'm going to vote for
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/ as the ultimate home for TG2.
I've not created a TG1 project, as I'm not even a good candidate for
discussing who should get access to the repo, never mind doing anything with
it.

chrisz, faide, carndt, kskuhlman, rejoc, jon, and dbrattli have made commits
in the last 2 years & should get automatic invites. Also, as BDFL, Mark
should have access. Hopefully others will speak up as willing to help
maintain 1.x.

-Ken

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Post by Ken Kuhlman
IMHO, tg 1 & 2 should be seperate projects on SF, so
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears/home/ &
http://sourceforge.net/p/turbogears2/home/ should be kept for their
respective use.

Ok. But I think "turbogears1" instead of "turbogears" will be clearer.
The current "turbogears" project (which was actually intended for tg2)
should be removed completely to not create confusion.

So I will create the turbogears1 project this week and move the active
tickets from Trac there. I will also help with the turbogears2 tickets.

-- Christoph

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Post by Mark Ramm
I have no objections to this approach.
As for the TG2 as sf.net location, I'm partial to /p/turbogears2/ but
can be persuaded by somebody with a strong argument/

Ok, so let's follow that plan now. I'm also for using "turbogears1" and
"turbogears2" as project names, and removing "turbogears" because that
will create only confusion. We should also create a top level project
"turbogears3", "orion", "karnak" but obviously we will need to agree on
a name first. I like "Orion", but it can be confused with Apache Orion.

-- Christoph

[Alessandro Molina]

Post by Christoph Zwerschke

Post by Mark Ramm
I have no objections to this approach.
As for the TG2 as sf.net location, I'm partial to /p/turbogears2/ but
can be persuaded by somebody with a strong argument/

Ok, so let's follow that plan now. I'm also for using "turbogears1" and
"turbogears2" as project names, and removing "turbogears" because that will
create only confusion. We should also create a top level project
"turbogears3", "orion", "karnak" but obviously we will need to agree on a
name first. I like "Orion", but it can be confused with Apache Orion.

...

I would suggest using turbogears3 only if its usage will be similar to
TG2 and it is fast to port applications from TG2 to TG3, otherwise I
would suggest using a different name to avoid expectations of being
able to simply replace an import and see it work from users.

Any help needed in moving tickets to allura for TG2? I still have to
see how allura works, but it shouldn't be impossible to help for such
a simple task

[Michael Pedersen]

I've been doing a mix of "get this code done for this ticket" and "close
this ticket". Right now, I'm stuck on a failing test.

I'll work on getting the TG2 tracker configured on SF tonight, so that we
should be able to migrate starting tomorrow. I got basics done last night,
but there's definitely more that can/should be done.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Alessandro Molina <

Post by Alessandro Molina

Post by Christoph Zwerschke

Post by Mark Ramm
I have no objections to this approach.
As for the TG2 as sf.net location, I'm partial to /p/turbogears2/ but
can be persuaded by somebody with a strong argument/

Ok, so let's follow that plan now. I'm also for using "turbogears1" and
"turbogears2" as project names, and removing "turbogears" because that

will

Post by Christoph Zwerschke
create only confusion. We should also create a top level project
"turbogears3", "orion", "karnak" but obviously we will need to agree on a
name first. I like "Orion", but it can be confused with Apache Orion.

I would suggest using turbogears3 only if its usage will be similar to
TG2 and it is fast to port applications from TG2 to TG3, otherwise I
would suggest using a different name to avoid expectations of being
able to simply replace an import and see it work from users.
Any help needed in moving tickets to allura for TG2? I still have to
see how allura works, but it shouldn't be impossible to help for such
a simple task
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.

...

--
Michael J. Pedersen
My IM IDs: Jabber/***@icelus.tzo.com, ICQ/103345809, AIM/pedermj022171
Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/***@hotmail.com