hi assadm, good morning everyone thanks for joining * bilbo-the-hobbit hello all we're not many though.. hi bilbo-the-hobbit! here's a reminder of the agenda: - Migration to GitLab: status and next steps - File release management - Marketplace / UForge follow up - New voting system Let's start with the migration to GitLab martinus__: yooo assadm: welcome We have good news regarding GitLab: @bilbo: thanks LemonLDAP::NG has been migrated successfully from Subversion and JIRA to git and GitLab issue tracker, you can see the result there: https://gitlab.ow2.org/lemonldap-ng/lemonldap-ng/ thumbs up ! a couple of issues remain though: - an annoying bug turning the commits count to 1 until a commit is performed from the GitLab UI - the date of the back references from a commit to an issue is wrong: it's the date of the initial push instead of the real one. Example: https://gitlab.ow2.org/lemonldap-ng/lemonldap-ng/issues/1245 see the commit mentions at the bottom: they're all set to 'a day ago' while the commits were performed earlier the commit count has a workaround hello everybody good morning hi yosu martinus__, the workaround is to make a commit via the UI or? slauriere, yes ok but I think the issue is one-time I think ok martinus__, and we have possible issues with the usernames or is it ruled out? --> alefebvr (~alefebvr@46.218.114.146) has joined #ow2-tc hey alefebvr, welcome hello everyone alefebvr: hello slauriere, I think it's ok for usernames ok, good news now the next steps will be to migrate the other repositories and issue trackers we plan also to publish a blog post about the JIRA to GitLab converter slauriere: will you publish it also ? bilbo-the-hobbit, yes, the code will be made available it's a couple of Python scripts the license will be the one of GitLab: MIT it's already available btw https://gitlab.ow2.org/ow2/gitlab-utils question: were you using JIRA before as Issue Tracker? Why to migrate it to GitLab? For keeping everything (git repositories, trackers, etc) in a single place? yosu, yes yosu: for my point of view to use free software and get modern tools, like git, issues, ci/cd, nice api :) indeed, moving to OSS was important as well all-in-one, that's fine. JIRA is the facto tracker at industrial level, but not OSS, so fine with me ok good big up again to martinus__ for this migration, and let's move to the next item? yes let's move Next item: File release management reminder: we have drawn a comparison between two main candidates: https://mail.ow2.org/wws/arc/technology-council/2017-10/msg00008.html comparison between the Nexus approach and the SFTP one there are open issues with both + there may be other options you have in mind? it's a hot topic that shares some concern with the general governance as pointed out by martinus__ slauriere: we are going to make the first release of FusionDirectory with gitlab and i'am currently looking at the gitlab release management ok, that's interesting bilbo-the-hobbit slauriere: for now i'am in favor of gitlab release management ok, slauriere: i found some reference about making piwik work with gitlab fr statistic , as we are heavy piwiki users bilbo-the-hobbit: ah great, that was the question I was about to ask I think there was some discussion about the choice of release management slauriere: i tend to prefer having the release done at the same place as the rest of the project bilbo-the-hobbit: that sounds good indeed alefebvr, what do you mean? on the TC list? "the same place", ok, but what if we want to use a mirror like we do in the current system slauriere: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/11/27/gitlab-switches-to-piwik-analytics-to-free-the-javascript/ slauriere: yes (I'm searching in the archive) martinus__: i have no answer to that thread is https://mail.ow2.org/wws/arc/technology-council/2017-01/msg00014.html martinus__: but i don't have any statistic on the need to have mirror And the other issue is, there is no "release" tab in gitlab, there is only tags that are eventually named "release-something" which holds files martinus__: https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/releases.html you not, but OW2 is :) martinus__: it used tags and that seems pretty ok for me alefebvr: thanks, I had forgotthen that one. I see we were referring to GitLab release management already martinus__: yes right now you are but is it usefull, its no because you are that we have to continues kessidi martinus? kessidi bilbo? martinus__: in my experience we got mirror from several companies/institutes for fusiondirectory but people still got the official ones sorry I missed the point with the mirrors: what's the issue? alefebvr: yes right now you are using mirror. But is it usefull ?? its not because you are using right now that we have to continues, we would need some stat to see if they are usefull or not got it, thanks bilbo maybe it's not useful, yes but I have scale in mind martinus__: the question about mirrors is 'how to mirror releases from GitLab', am I correct? martinus__: i really depend if software are downloaded often from ow2 or not, and you can still scale when needed, but at first lets keep thing simple I tend to agree with bilbo-the-hobbit you don't see the big picture I'm sorry if the downloads are available on gitlab.ow2.org/something, and all the links are spread over the internet we will dig with extra work if we want to change this to anything else I see, good point martinus__: yes but that the way people look for release, lot at github for exemple, i see something, i go to the project, read and download if wanted martinus__: and it allows me easyly to get back to older release and see all the commit, i have done that not late than yesterday let me be clear, I am totally for using gitlab release management in its own ; but I'm thinking of the big picture not only the feature it self martinus__: for me there is no big pictures here if we remove the facility and just put some tar.gz somewhere we have to take into account also the projects which do not use the OW2 GitLab as their main repository I don't understand that last sentence they have to be able to automate the publication of releases slauriere, well they could have a gitlab project only for release purpose again, I'm not against using gitlab ok martinus__, and they could use the GitLab API to publish the release files and release notes ? this was my understanding too: projects who currently use forge to release files could create an "empty" gitlab project to release slauriere: we are in this case and i'm thinking it should go into the sync process from git/gitlab external to gitlab ow2 I just say that, whenever you ddownload a file from eclipse or sourceforge, you don't get it download from the same url because download repositoiry is another place, for modularity purpose martinus__: arggg sourceforge bad idea ! :/ its not the way i want to download software, and we are not sourceforge bilbo-the-hobbit, sourceforge, apache, pretty any plateform that distribute software in fact but really, if everybody is for using gitlab.ow2.org , I'm ok with it martinus__: yes but i don't respond to my first question do we need it martinus__: do you have some stats for the download from ow2 mirrors ? bilbo-the-hobbit, yes of course bilbo-the-hobbit, stats.ow2.org slauriere, "we are not sourceforge" martinus__: yes be we don't know the size of the project in MB/GB ? we don't know from where slauriere, makes me think about the gouvernance thing bilbo-the-hobbit, this is only the download count bilbo-the-hobbit, indeed, good point, to be improved I agree modularity is important martinus__: put a piwik :) xwiki for example is download from ow2 Could SFTP be a better solution? see https://tc.ow2.org/bin/view/wiki/File+Release+Management+POC by martinus__ Could Nexus be a good one too ? martinus__: i'am against nexus It's all in pro/con in the mail we sent bilbo-the-hobbit, I'm not surprised :) martinus__: + some issues you raised afterwards, in particular the mirror thing martinus__: i'am in favor of reducing the software to maintain, and i'am all for having a platform that easy to use if everybody think SFTP cons are not blocking for OW2 usage, I'll go for it bilbo-the-hobbit: what do you have against Nexus? slauriere: it another layer of software to maintain, it has been made specificaly for one type of program ok slauriere: i don't see the point if we have the feature natively in gitlab to use anothet software bilbo-the-hobbit: that would be for modularity and adress possible high traffic load so it means that we could just use gitlab and forget about both Nexus and SFTP? slauriere: and if the mirror is a bandwith issue we will have it everywhere well, OW2 is mostly java projects, this is why ther eis a nexus instance to hold artifacts let's review SFTP cons: no UI to upload files -> not really blocking right? martinus__: yes but if those projects got to gitlab you can then use the ci/cd and release managament from there no API: but SFTP actions can be automated from the command line, right? bilbo-the-hobbit, I think this topic cannot be answered without any java developper/project leader discussing here sorry guys if I'm lost here: if we decide for gitlab for release, do we still need a Nexus/SFTP or would gitlab be enough? martinus__: nexus is to maintain stuff after release right ? alefebvr, it's not clear to me. I think about Nexus being pretty mandatory in distributing java artifacts alefebvr: if xe use gitlab release we don't need nexus/sftp martinus__: do you have the url of nexus with explanations ? and also we have parts of the artifacts that are mirrored to maven central OK, so it looks like: we have https://www.ow2.org/bin/view/IT_Infrastructure/NexusMigrationGuide 1. gitlab would be ok for non Java projects 2. for Java projects we do need Nexus anyway nexus provides an artifactory repository for Maven artefacts, so only compatible with Java projects that are managed with Maven/Gradle 3. this means that if we provide gitlab + Nexus we don't need SFTP then ? but it does not support the distribution of entire deployable projects (i.e. a forge), it is more intended for libraries, up to my knowledge yosu, in fact you can deploy any file you want yes, but it is not replacing a forge yosu: for entire deployable projects, what do we need then? alefebvr: gitlab will do the job assadm, do you have knowledge in java project deployment best practices ? anyone that needs to download and install software tools, for instance, but not resolving and downloading dependencies alefebvr: you can even deploy directly form the ci to get an isnatnce with your code running for demo or else martinus__: I can investigate this point bilbo-the-hobbit: ok I've only used Nexus (or similar) for dependency management, for other purposes, we use forges alefebvr: that the way we will be going in the next month with fusiondirectory, everything will go out of the ci/cd in my mind, java projects aare heavily related to dependencies management snapshots ,etc yes, when packaged as libraries, but not for final installers or deployable units (WAR, EAR, etc) we use Jenkins here at UShareSoft, I could gather info about the ci/cd and release process if you're interested alefebvr: we use jenkins heavily also at fusiondirectory :) yosu, yes, and OW2 also hosts the project day to day lifecycle alefebvr: but moving all to gitlab ci ok alefebvr: yes, that'd be interesting, thx! slauriere: ok alefebvr: for building a maven project just use the official docker image that integrate right into gitlab ci slauriere: i will put my finding and way to do release for fusiondirectory in gitlab in the ow2 technical mailing list as soon as its finished see https://repository.ow2.org/nexus/content/repositories/snapshots/org/ow2/joram/ , as you see it's been recently used bilbo-the-hobbit: excellent! are you considering to support a Docker image repository for CD?, that would be great as main final product repository yosu, we are already yosu, it's enabled per project great, I will use it for STAMP yosu: great guys, it looks like the discussion around release management won't be over today but we made some progress and we need to reevaluate our positions thanks for that quickly: anything you'd like to mention about AppHub? taking into account alefebvr 's feedback on the mailing-list (thanks alex) you mean Marketplace? yes, the Marketplace indeed :-) slauriere: can you put the url here :) in the mailing list, I replied to BMO's comments about the poor usability of the platform (which we know about) (in terms of performance) alefebvr: yes :) bilbo-the-hobbit: here it is: https://mail.ow2.org/wws/arc/technology-council/2017-10/msg00006.html when we did AppHub, the issue was not so much for the delivery of the software slauriere: thanks which projects usually are good at it was about how to make available a working installation of the software inside a working machine this is what the AppHub Factory is about slauriere: again with gitlab and docker you get direct deployment of a demo instance for exemple as an OW2 end user, I can download the binaries from OW2, but installating them can be a nightmare slauriere: there is of course no monetization of any form into gitlab this is what AppHub offers a packaging of the binaries with the right choice of OS / version and the installation scripts bilbo-the-hobbit: right but what if you want' to deploy your software to an OpenStack instance? alefebvr: yes kind of a docker stuff :) so that when the machine boots, everything installs itself, and the end user does not have to pull dependencies, install packages, ... yes kind of, butL yes kind of, but slauriere: if i have to manage openstack and his complexity i think a don't need an image :) but yes what if :) but sometimes you don't want to run in docker (on top of a docker server) but directly inside a VM on top of the OS alefebvr: i'am against docker for production :) alefebvr: but for demo purpose yes or testing bilbo-the-hobbit: some people use it in production bilbo-the-hobbit, I think slauriere mean what if you want to generate a qcow2 image easily using the Factory alefebvr: i know :) alefebvr: use docker swarm for that with the Factory you package your project inside a "template" once, and generate any format martinus__: yes but again what is the purpose of apphub ? bilbo-the-hobbit, this. the purpose of AppHub (the collab project which is now finished) was to offer tools to open source projects and open source collaborative projects to package their results in something usable martinus__: yes so my queqtion again is it used ? alefebvr: i should check it again and not just binaries + a set of install instructions which are out of date bilbo-the-hobbit, it could be if you want to make an image of FD in qcow2 format for example, easily AppHub is being used at the moment for the Chorevolution collab project I think otherwise I don't think there is much usage I can look at the log stats alefebvr: yes but i don"t think giving black box will remove the need for docs or best practice etc .. alefebvr: yes if i can have some stats bilbo-the-hobbit: you are right. It is not a "black box" because the user can see the installation scripts, binaries included, details of the OS profile. To me the real question is: does AppHub fulfill a need for OW2 projects to "deliver" their project software. If not, then ... good bye :-) alefebvr, :) alefebvr: yes thats the question for me alefebvr, how to determine that ? alefebvr, what's the common use case for that usharesoft tools ? during AppHub, I tried on some OW2 projects, and in some cases the OW2 project does provide a doc, but it's really complex, so in this case the template is a good idea. for our customers, the use cases are as I said in the e-mail https://mail.ow2.org/wws/arc/technology-council/2017-10/msg00006.html - cloud providers use it to manage the stacks they provide to their users as images, updating such base images with the appropriate security/management tools/OS versions. - end users often start with a migration project. They use UForge to migrate existing applications from their existing IT infrastructure to a new one. This may also only include the audit part: UForge migration is used to discover all services/packages/applications installed in a set of servers, discover inconsistencies, ... - end users also use UForge to manage their applications. They use UForge as a software governance tool, to control the OS layer finely (packages, versions), connect UForge to their private software repositories and assemble applications. Often UForge is used in a DevOps chain, calling UForge from Jenkins to assemble a template from components, generate a machine image and publish to cloud. Also, in a multi-team organisation, they share the template be tween teams to add their respective parts. sorry - some use cases combine UForge with their DevOps tools (e.g. puppet). The use case is: instead of all 20,000 machines calling the puppet server to download the latest version of the software (which used to make the network collapse), the software is managed in UForge, images pushed on the machines, which still use puppet for the post configuration. that's ok bilbo-the-hobbit: so you don't have or foresee the need to generate an image of FusionDirectory in qcow2 format, or AWS, or VMware etc.? martinus__: how to determine whether it answers a need? We should ask OW2 projects :-) slauriere: right now no bilbo-the-hobbit: ok, but could it make sense in the future? yes yes, FusionDirectory is a good example: you don't know which environment will be used in production, so you do need a template so that you can generate any mimage slauriere: not sure ... and if we needed that i would require that it can be called from gitlab alefebvr: can we integrate the apphub image build fonctionnality with gitlab ? I mean, any potential user could be interested to deploy the software in their production environment, so the use case is this: with a template containing the binaries and installation procedure, you can do it bilbo-the-hobbit: I see. The GitLab integration part is probably doable with UForge alefebvr? martinus__: are the user/password of the apphub comming from the ow2 ldap another point is Uforge is an "external" tool, not being OSS software :/ bilbo-the-hobbit, nope martinus__: arggg diging start :) bilbo-the-hobbit: integration with CI is the use case of some of our customers. They have a repo of binaires / rpm / whatever, and nightly they build a UForge template using hammr (OW2 project :-) generate and publish the image alefebvr, and provision it if needed martinus__: do you have some documentation on this ? alefebvr: do you have some documentation on this ? martinus__: and yes not being oss is an issues for us but we have to think about it provision: can be done with the IaaS API today. We have started the "deploy" (provision) features. http://docs.usharesoft.com/projects/appcenter-user-guide/en/latest/pages/changelog.html Deploy requires Apache Brooklyn to be installed which we don't have on the AppHub infrastructure I have to go : cheers ! cheers martinus__ we probably need to submit a questionnaire to the OW2 project leaders to evaluate their interest in UForge bye martinus__ bye martinus__ martinus__: bye could we work on such a questionnaire together alefebvr, what do you think? I'll discuss this with alefebvr when he'll back let's move to the last item: voting system we need a voting system for the board election we've been evaluating CIVS lately: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/ slauriere: yes condorcet method indeed the OpenStack Foundation is using it slauriere: https://www.debian.org/vote/ slauriere: debian use a variation in condorcet method bilbo-the-hobbit: I see. devotee could be a candidate as well CIVS can be used as SaaS or on premise we've run a few tests successfully so unless there is some objection I'd propose we'll use it for the 2018 board election. fine with me, I am not quite familiarize with this, so I trust you ok yosu, thanks for your feedback let's terminate the meeting here if you're ok *thank you* all for joining and talk to you soon bye everybody bye