Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#11326 closed task (implemented)

Let dgoulet push to torsocks git, and also archive the old one first

Reported by: arma Owned by: erinn, nickm, Sebastian, weasel
Priority: Medium Milestone:
Component: Internal Services/Service - git Version:
Severity: Keywords:
Cc: dgoulet, ioerror, nickm Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

https://gitweb.torproject.org/ has a torsocks git repo, which as I understand it is the old legacy torsocks. We should move that to an attic, and maybe rename it to torsocks-legacy for clarity.

Then we should let dgoulet import his new improved torsocks and have it be our torsocks git repo.

Thanks!

Child Tickets

Change History (9)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by dgoulet

Small clarification, I based my code on top of the current upstream master so theoretically, I can push the new code on top without a problem. That would keep all the tags and history which is usually good.

The only thing I would suggest is to remove the current branches that are quite old/broken/irrelevant/development/bugs. Those shouldn't be public in the main repository in the first place imo and wont be useful with the new code.

In a nutshell, let the repository as is and simply delete the branches *except* master.

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by Sebastian

I gave dgoulet access, I'd like the current owners to consent before deleting branches.

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by dgoulet

I have 3 fixes on top of the latest release (rc6) so I will release a rc7 and announce at the same time that the upstream repository has now changed to the gitweb.tpo.org (and not my github anymore) thus pushing the new code at that time.

I will also move the Github issues to the trac and close the Github tracker so we can centralize issues management.

After that, I might triage the current issues that affect the 1.x series. Not sure what to do with them but until the 2.x is not the default shipped/packaged, we should keep them and maybe flag them old/deprecated (or something like that).

Finally, as for a 2.0.0-stable release, ioerror still wants a fairly thorough code review by a third part so I will continue searching for such a person in the Tor community but we might want to put a timeout on that at some point in time :S or else I fear this will stay a "vaporware"... :S

That's sums it up, hope it makes sense so I will start all of this in the next days.

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by dgoulet

Cc: ioerror nickm added

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by weasel

So, what's the status here?

comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by dgoulet

Code is upstream:

https://gitweb.torproject.org/torsocks.git

I've yet move the issues from Github but shouldn't take me long. In terms of code review, I'm still waiting. I poked some people here and there but nothing conclusive.

Once we flag this stable, I'll write a blog post to explain all this to the public and also add features! :)

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by weasel

I wondered less about the code status and more about this particular request.

What needs to happen to git? If nothing, I can close the ticket. If anything, please be specific and concise.

comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by dgoulet

Code is upstream thus I have commit access thus this can be close.

I'm not planning on deleting old branches in torsocks.git for now so Sebastian request should be a new ticket where branch authors can weigh in.

comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by arma

Resolution: implemented
Status: newclosed

Closing then -- I had originally thought that torsocks 2 wasn't built on torsocks 1, but I am wrong.

Thanks everybody!

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.