@fedora-qa group doesn't have commit access to blockerbugs. Is it intentional?
I have not deleted the bitbucket repos yet but I have removed write
access for pretty much everyone so that there are no accidental pushes.
Please look over the repos to see if I missed anything. Once we're sure
everything is there, we can delete the bitbucket projects or just
replace them with READMEs that point to the new pagure repos.
I replaced all my origin URLs, even pushed to them (fixed URLs in code), seems to be
working fine. Let's add a README with "moved to:" sentence to the old
repos.
Also, I'm wondering whether we want to have a separate namespace/group
for resultsdb. I'm fine with it the way it is but figured that I would
ask to see what other folks thought.
I'd keep it under the taskotron umbrella.
What about tasks, though? What I liked about BitBucket is that we had them separated by
project name, so that they could be easily browsed:
https://bitbucket.org/account/user/fedoraqa/projects/TT
https://bitbucket.org/account/user/fedoraqa/projects/TEX
We can't do that easily in Pagure. We could use a different namespace, but namespaces
are not browseable (at least not yet; only user groups are browseable which is a different
thing). So while we could have taskotron-tasks and taskotron-example-tasks namespaces, and
could make the repo URLs look like:
taskotron-tasks/rpmlint
taskotron-example-tasks/bodhi
it's probably not the best idea due to directory names after checkout, and it
wouldn't help us currently (until some RFE is implemented) anyway. So our best option
is probably to put everything into the taskotron namespace, and distinguish that using a
repo name (the same way we have it now):
taskotron/task-rpmlint
taskotron/task-example-bodhi
We could use this opportunity to unite the task examples repo names (currently we have
slightly different syntax for each repo).