[Openid-specs-ab] Migrating source control to github?

Thu Jan 26 04:29:23 UTC 2023

I am strongly opposed to the migration *unless we can move the entire
history (including timestamps) of the issues and PR linkages etc*. We have
been painstakingly doing that.
It is not just a matter of whether we have finished working on a work etc.
It is a transparency and accountability issue for the entire foundation.

When we moved from Mercurial to Git, we made sure that it was the case. At
the time, we also evaluated if it was possible to move to GitHub, but the
answer was negative. Given that the migration was done like 5 years ago,
the situation may have changed, but unless that is made sure, we cannot
migrate.
The last migration did not impact the Foundation's budget because NRI took
the cost of researching it and the migration of it, but that was not
trivial.

Also,
> 2 - Github orgs would allow for a connect or OpenID parent with
individual repos for the various specs similar to other specification
efforts using github (more focused issue
is not a good reason as it is the same in BitBucket.

Best,

Nat Sakimura

2023年1月20日(金) 0:38 Torsten Lodderstedt via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>:

> +1 to migrating after we published the Implementers Drafts of OID4VC
>
> On Jan. 11 2023, at 6:54 pm, Mike Jones via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>
> As discussed during a working group call (I think in December), there’s an
> appetite for moving **all** Connect specs to the GitHub repository
> github.com/openid/connect at the same time.  We should move them all
> because then we maintain the benefit of having a single issue tracker for
> the working group.  If we had to use different issue trackers for different
> specs, that would be an ongoing source of confusion.  It would also make it
> more difficult to chair calls, since we’d have to triage issues and PRs
> across multiple repositories.
>
>
>
> When we move, issues will all migrate.  PRs will not migrate.  Therefore,
> we should be mindful about when to migrate so as to minimize the number of
> open PRs.  The consensus when we last discussed this is that the right time
> to migrate is after we publish proposed Implementer’s Drafts for the
> OpenID4VC specs.  (The OpenID Connect Federation editors can also try to
> ensure that most/all of the Federation PRs are merged at the same time.)
>
>
>
> So if any of you need more motivations to review OpenID4VC issues and PRs
> and get us to proposed Implementer’s Drafts, take into account that you
> doing so will accelerate our migration to GitHub. 😊  Let’s promptly
> advance the OpenID4VC specs!
>
>
>
>                                                        -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> *On
> Behalf Of *Joseph Heenan via Openid-specs-ab
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2023 2:36 AM
> *To:* Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> *Cc:* Joseph Heenan <joseph at authlete.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Migrating source control to github?
>
>
> Hi Jeremie
>
>
> I think I’d be in favour of this.
>
> There’s precedent for this, the OIDF shared signals and events group
> already moved to GitHub:
>
> https://github.com/openid/sse
>
> I think whether each WG has one repo per WG (as currently on bitbucket and
> as SSE currently do on GitHub) or one per spec (as you are I think
> suggesting) is a slightly more nuanced discussion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2023, at 00:59, Jeremie Miller via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to put out a feeler to this group on interest in migrating from
> bitbucket to github for the OpenID4VC family of specs.
>
>
> The reason I'm only suggesting migrating a subset of the larger connect
> repository is two-fold:
> 1 - They're younger specs and the team managing them right now is pretty
> active and focused
> 2 - Github orgs would allow for a connect or OpenID parent with individual
> repos for the various specs similar to other specification efforts using
> github (more focused issue trackers, permissions, build automations, etc)
>
> If there's interest and no blockers, I'm also volunteering to help do the
> work of the migration.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jer
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*_______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>

-- 
Nat Sakimura
NAT.Consulting LLC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20230126/1907c31f/attachment.html>