Discussion: General todos

[sbatial]

Most importantly:
Is there a best way to get the PRs from ogham/exa into this repo?
Pinging the people who opened it?
Pull them locally and open them again up manually?
@syphar I'm mainly asking because your comment in ogham/exa/issues/1139 sounded to me that you had something like that in mind?!

If not possible / wanted I would alternatively create a fork, and start merging open PRs from this into it.

---

Also: how do we feel about

• branch protections? (Very much in favor. At least for master)
• discussions (github feature)? (idk. I have seen other projects use it. just a thought.)

[cafkafk]

branch protections?

Yes! Big fan.

discussions

Having somewhere to communicate would be nice, if nothing better is proposed I think this would be a good solution.

[sbatial]

Note/Answer to my own question:

Is there a best way to get the PRs from ogham/exa into this repo? Pinging the people who opened it? Pull them locally and open them again up manually?

I don't know if there is something easier but it is possible to pull a PR from ogham/exa with
git fetch <exa-origin> pull/<pull-id>/head:<new-branch-name>.

The changes can then be reviewed (on the <new-branch-name> branch) and pushed to zetta, keeping the commit history intact.

[syphar]

Thank you for working on this!

branch protections: yes, a good idea most of the time.

exa PRs:
you can add the remote, and then merge the branches for these PRs into this repo.

When we are in "catch up" mode you can merge, test & push directly, without a second PR.

[syphar]

I created branch protection rules, for now only forbidding force-push & delete.

IMO more ( like forcing PRs) are useful, but now they would slow you down unnecessarily.

[cafkafk]

Getting discussions and/or some other place where we can track what pull requests have been dealt with would be great, this is soon gonna become very hard to manage 😖

[syphar]

Getting discussions and/or some other place where we can track what pull requests have been dealt with would be great, this is soon gonna become very hard to manage 😖

I'm for anything that you feel you need, though with this example I'm not sure if discussions are the right place.

Personally I was hoping that the effort to merge PRs from the original exa repo would mostly be a one-time effort, which we could track in one issue.

I'm happy to activate any feature if you are feeling that these would help you

[sbatial]

@cafkafk Am I right in the assumption that you are planning on merging the PRs in your fork first and then put them all into zetta in one go?

If so: Great idea.
Just so I know and don't start working on anything you are doing already.

Also: I'm creating a collected issue (maybe I'll do a project instead to tick them off easier) right now to track the exa pulls

On that topic: I would propose to use a project for the catch up.
Makes it easy to track progress and "tag" all of the catch-up related things in one go.
@syphar You'd need to enable them (if there aren't any oppositions) (just for now. probably disable them after we're done. it's just the easiest to tick off who's done what without needing one person to update an issue imo)

[syphar]

@cafkafk Am I right in the assumption that you are planning on merging the PRs in your fork first and then put them all into zetta in one go?

If so: Great idea.

Just so I know and don't start working on anything you are doing already.

It's up to you two how you prefer to handle this, but you could also just create a single PR to this repo that merges the others, or even review / test the original PRs, and then just push to master on this repo.

Also: I'm creating a collected issue (maybe I'll do a project instead to tick them off easier) right now to track the exa pulls

On that topic: I would propose to use a project for the catch up.

Makes it easy to track progress and "tag" all of the catch-up related things in one go.

@syphar You'd need to enable them (if there aren't any oppositions) (just for now. probably disable them after we're done. it's just the easiest to tick off who's done what without needing one person to update an issue imo)

Activated.

[cafkafk]

Am I right in the assumption that you are planning on merging the PRs in your fork first and then put them all into zetta in one go?

Not entirely, I'm expecting these changes to be trivial to pull into zetta, but honestly I'm not as sure of it just being a temporary fork. exa seems very dead to me, and I also am considering some changes that might diverge too drastically (e.g. I am not so sure about using vagrant for testing).

However, first I'm just focusing on getting the exa PRs working.

[sbatial]

Activated.

Thank you very much.
I don't understand what permissions github wants but sadly I cannot create a new project in this repo.
But I don't want to cause any more work on your side so I'm just creating an issue.

[sbatial]

Not entirely, I'm expecting these changes to be trivial to pull into zetta, but honestly I'm not as sure of it just being a temporary fork.

Agreed.

I trust your judgement with the pulls and hope the stuff coming straight from exa which has already been merged in your forked can go into zetta via a combined pull.

[sbatial]

I'd really love to see efforts combined so to clarify: Are the (potential) goals of zetta and cafkafk/eza currently actually incompatible and thus need to be seperate projects?

• we all agree that the first step is to get the open exa pulls merged
• (the repo at that commit would still be compatible enough with exa to merge back if ever wanted)
• after that: the project can continue, potentially diverging from exa (or do you disagree @syphar?)

I really don't care about the amount of projects existing. Only about whether or not work has to be done twice or whether the only difference is in repo-permissions.

[cafkafk]

I've just finished my first pass through all the PRs. It's simply more efficient for me to be the owner when I'm iterating this rapidly, and given how syphar seems occupied elsewhere it just makes sense to me to work in my own fork.

I think the only major diverging goal is that zetta identifies as a temporary project, where I want a project that continues exa, but with active maintenance. I'm not as concerned with whether or not ogham ends up being the owner, I'm much more interested in a faster turnaround on PRs.