hyperion

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

Also we have website / forum bugs on trac, moving them into 0ad source repo seems wrong

Another thing that comes to mind is milestone for bugs, useless and only causes pushing back over and over again ... People work on a ticked if they feel like it, so pretending otherwise doesn't do good to anyone.

Guess there are many, one with questionable wrapping is fc5518a22b15827c7f4d4410c27dad4c628af8a4 and on that got worse with rev to sha is 9f85b097e11ffac38df23815a62b14bd25925d2d you can't change human nature Needs to be made public before the actual migration so others can verify the migration, but can wait.

I don't really mind but @ShadowOfHassen above was puzzled with the outcome of "git pull --tags origin main", so it's safe to assume there is a certain expectation. Ok, but then maybe using Ghost like github or similar would be better to indicate the intent of it being a removed/invalid user. Could also be used in future for deleted users without awkwardness. It helps distinguishing metadata from commit message, the linux kernel and many other projects do this as well, guess it would also be good to follow this convention in the future. Is the source of the whole migration available somewhere? Anyway a first simple solution from the top of my head :set textwidth=72 :normal gggqG :wq save the above as rewrap.vim and run as vim -es -S rewrap.vim message.txt Maybe wrapping the first line (subject) is undesirable though. Anyway looking at the result should shed some light on what to improve. Coreutils has commands to similar effect IIRC, would have to dig through man pages tho. But they might fit better into the migration pipeline in the end.

Fine, let me add some random findings in short form: default branch name trunk -> main maybe Pascal case generates a link on trac, maybe camel case as well. The migration script ideally filters such broken links. Example: https://gitea.itms.ovh/wfg/0ad/issues/6796 https://gitea.itms.ovh/TracUser should probably be renamed, at least if it's used in future for automation in commit messages patch by, comments by, reviewed by, svn commit id probably should be a block, ie. no empty lines in between might want to rewrap commit messages at width 72, some weren't wrapped at all and some are wrapped poorly after changing svn rev with the much longer commit hash If the underling file system allows sharing extends this should be even less.

The technical issue is fairly well summed up by Sam James from Gentoo at https://gist.github.com/thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 A rather good video by Theo discussing the human component of the exploit:

@Itms Glad to see progress was made and we might have an improved workflow in the not so distant future. Appreciated. I wonder if it would make sense to create a subforum for the git migration and keep this topic as a means for informing the community about the general progress. I already see me bringing up various issues which each might warrant a discussion. Putting them into separate threads would help keep some order at least and help avoid duplicate reports to some extent. Or maybe we simply should use trac?

If Redhat trust the people they have given commit access to flathub they can just put the trusted label on it and users can chose to trust Redhat or not, done. Upstream endorsing downstream is backward, why should upstream endorse Canonical and Redhat but not all the other distributors? Maybe you realize there is as much politics in this as other reasons. If upstreams aren't serious about it and just randomly hand out dozens of endorsements then it's a disservice to the end user and being serious means work, no way around it.

Those distribution builds are done by distribution maintainers and not wfg. Sure sometimes they run into issues and might ask a quetion or two but more often than not they provide patches and it can be considered a net win for the project. From the viewpoint of wfg flatpack is just yet another binary repo. That reminds me of https://xkcd.com/927/ I'm a Linux user for 30 years and still not yet a fundamentalist. What I expect from binaries is that I could build them myself and that they are from a trusted source, also I want to get notified of security issues and them being taken care of in a professional and timely manner. Lastly it should be functional. This is what a distribution maintainer is for and if you want to take care of flatpack you will have to take up the same role. Whether the binary format is PE, ELF or Mach-O I don't care and don't see why I should. So the really bad I really don't understand. Wine is a recursive acronym for wine is not an emulator. Sometimes a software actually runs faster in wine than on Windows. I remember getting about twice the FPS for Diablo II. Ofc an Linux package is preferable all else equal. Debian builds for 4 different archs https://packages.debian.org/stable/0ad, so no single binary to rule them all. There are more archs than that running Linux, some somewhat recent patches suggest people also want to run 0ad on risc-v and e2k. Not money but man-hours. Half a day would be not unusual I'd estimate. Add to that that bugs with that package would be come our bugs instead of theirs. If you want to help I guess you'd have to be familiar with building from source, packaging software, willing to commit for several years, live in a country were law can reach you and possibly meet a current developer IRL for exchanging keys.

Why would you mind the unverified label for flatpack? Also what does native mean? After all the exe is a native x86 binary and flatpack isn't a native distribution package. Using wine gets you a 0-day trusted binary path at basically no cost for wfg. The cost for a release I'd argue is already in the unhealthy territory. I fully understand that this might not be the most favorite solution for a small set of users but my standpoint is providing the sources is good enough and beyond that is adding bells and whistles.

Few years ago I tried and hwdetect triggered an error due to numa not being implemented in wine, the error dialog offered a continue button and so I continued and from there the game ran just fine. If this is still the case just dropping numa detection which we don't make use of in the the first place would allow us to have a viable alternative to offer a "trusted" binary for the impatient beside the just build it yourself (tm). While it is true that a distro might lag a lot, those listed as the most popular were all reasonably fast to offer the latest version in the past as far as I remember.

Have you ever tried running the Windows version available on play0ad in wine?

No, that is really only a mirror. @Vantha just ask an admin to manually activate the phab account. Spam bots are just to common this days and the hurdles placed for them might occasionally affect legitimate attempts at registering.

Created a pull request

We don't strictly need 8 names, I mean I can play against 3 or maybe 4 before I get badly beaten. So in most games a single name per civ would be already enough. Using made up names would undermine the point made by @Stan` which I quite like. So requiring 8 names doesn't sound that great.

Adding more names is an option, removing names ending in a roman number is an option. Not generation an endless list I consider a regression (the engine already supports more than 8 players), tho changing how the list is generated might make a lot of sense. What do you have in mind for how it should work, replace roman numbers with a suffix like (2)?