hyperion

Well, semantics if you want, but in a dvcs unlike the cvcs there is no real "upstream"

Submodules are probably best described as pointers and are at least as hard to work with as pointers in C. The repository pointed at is a normal independent git repo.

That can be taken as an argument against an svn source-libs repo and using individual git repos if you want. There is no difference who hosts it, except that one hoster may be down while the other currently isn't. Basically, the use of submodules as described so far is just replacing a repo uri and a hash in "update-workspace.sh" with a submodule and that is definitely not worth the associated pain.

The point is not how to make submodules less cumbersome for some people but not others but if they offer anything at all in our case. We already have such a script, it's called update-workspace.sh for Linux, and any dep that can reasonably be un-vendored has a --with-system-* switch. Debian won't gain anything new at all by using submodules instead of plain old fetch everyone understands.

NIST banned the use of sha1 and I expect a strong push to migrate to sha256 object format the next couple years. The git object format is no longer labeled experimental and gitea supports it properly for all I know. Suggest to at least consider it.

Working with submodules is terribly difficult. A web search will give you plenty of blog post of how people thought it's a good idea for there use case and shot themself in the foot. And there was even an argument for using svn because of difficulty earlier in this thread. There are situations where submodules make sense but to use it to pretend it's not part of the repo isn't one. If you want to have it linked just put it in directly as was done in the past. Though simply fetching as part of the build process is a far better approach imho. The svn source-libs repo as a stop gap solution I'm fine with, even tho individual git repos for each source lib would be better.

Which doesn't make sense to me, also I have seen it in the wild. To render scoped labels as they call it as scoped labels only if they are also exclusive is counterintuitive. I'm not alone thinking such https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/23164/commits/c278def8e3441783b1c07c67bd4bf208d487950b There are open bugs for broken/bad contrast algorithm, so for now choosing colors that work is what one can do. The activity labels are pointless. "reviewer-needed" is true for any open pull request by virtue of being open. Does "under-review" have any connotation other than I grabbed that PR and anyone else should stfu? "work-in-progress" is just the unsafe way to mark a PR as WIP. The "resolved" are also not ideal as it stands for closed, however needs-info could just as well be kept open and only if we don't hear from a user over a certain time close it. Also fixed is closed without any tag. I think it would also make sense to merge priority labels 4 and 5. Basically low medium high and bricked are enough.

7-char will blow up on us, 10-char is just about acceptable, rough approximation: $ bc <<< "scale=15; commits=25000; digits=10; commits^2 / (2*(16^digits))" .000284217094304 Whatever should be added to gitconfig, also remember commands like revert will pre-populate the commit message with full hash. Well, white on light gray I have trouble reading. Help! Component instead of theme maybe, also make them key value pair labels? Coloring the value portion of the label is separate from coloring the key portion, I only suggest the key portion to be the same across a label type. White space would be fine me thinks. An indicator that there are just to many. Let's say open/closed for status is enough *runs*

https://gitea.itms.ovh/issues should list a logged in users issues instance wide. I almost always use git log from cli. That one works, tho the one I had in mind was a tweaked version of the one on play0ad IIRC. Use what you deem fit. While we are discussing UI, the labels are somewhat messy. The color scheme makes it a bit hard to read them, maybe a bit more muted would be better. Those theme/.. labels should be changed to some more meaningful text, theme/core-engine feels just wrong. The type portion of labels should probably have same color for labels of the same type. The priority labels using kebab case feels meh, also starting with a number is not needed. The time tracking feature for issues probably should be disabled, don't think we will use it.

Similar but better looking if I'm not completely wrong I meant the gitea instance hosted at git.wildfiregames.com at some point. I think it was based off of the one on play0ad.com

I guess that is what the adriane tool mentioned is meant for but a draft document outlining the plan would allow us to actually comment on not just guesses @Itms , I remember @Stan` had a header header which look quite slick for his PoC, maybe you could reuse it (didn't screenshot it). Would give the instance a cooperate branding / personal touch and would give the links leaving the instance a separate place to live as having them mixed feels not that great tbh.

np Can't edit the wiki with the new account, same for bugs and I just assume I can't push either. About bugs guess we need a group as well, @Langbart's work would be a good example for the bug-wrangler role. The path is documented on the page Phabricator. Guess an acceptable compromise. Is there a similar document for trac becoming read-only?

If no third party did the tooling then us writing it with the available developer time budget is probably unrealistic even if theoretically possible (gitea supports inline comments). However, there is no way around that at some point phab must be read-only, ideally at the time of migration. Simply opening an issue on gitea with a link to a differential would be a simple albeit subpar solution.

Why not migrate them to gitea pull requests? I remember blender intending to do so and having some success in tooling at some point. If not reasonably possible what is the path to make that instance read-only and possibly static html? How are editing wiki and bugs to be handled? Give everyone access as now done on track?

Fair enough maybe dump them into a wfg/issues repo with only a readme as source instead? Opened a bug with a dummy account, but none are listed in the created by you section of the user