Meeting Minutes - Office Hours for CTI - 2026-02-06

[Carlos O'Donell]

Meeting Minutes - ​Office Hours for CTI - 2026-02-06

Agenda:

  * CTI questions?
  * glibc gitolite configuration.
   * Developers should decide what the gitolite configuration does.
   * Any gitolite configuration should mirror best practices we already have in place.
  * Adhemerval: Do we have a timeline on the transition?
   * Carlos: The timeline serves the project, and at the same time we need to work with LF IT to determine schedule.
   * Carlos: We are waiting on the SOW update at this point, when we get it I'll update the developer list.
   * Siddhesh: What do we want from the schedule? When would we like to migrate?
    * Discussed the transition being in the middle of the development window or after a release.
   * Joseph: Bugzilla is a lot more complicated because of all the other projects in Sourceware Bugzilla (I think splitting each moved project into its own Bugzilla is a good idea) - and then you need to put a comment in each migrated issue saying where it's been migrated to, and hopefully block further discussion in those issues on Sourceware Bugzilla.
  * Adhemerval: Do we plan to do this in 2 phases? One phase?
   * Carlos: Phase one is certainly git and email.
  * Sachin: Will our main repository be hosted by LF IT?
  * Carlos: LF IT would host the canonical repository. Sourceware could host a mirror at the existing URL.
  * Siddhesh: We are not breaking away from Sourceware, and we will still work with Sourceware on a variety of other services and projects. The core infrastructure definitely needs to be well funded and will be supported via CTI. The Forge experiment continues on Sourceware.
  * Sunil: Just interested about that for our regular flow.
  * Carlos: There should be no changes in the developer workflow.
  * Siddhes: At a higher level, in terms of governance, developer workflow changes are strictly out of scope of the CTI TAC. We're only here to make sure that we plan and fund the changes we have decided on as a community.
  * Carlos: Just want to reiterate that governance questions and what workflow to adopt are out of scope for CTI, those are conversations for the developers to have, and include such conversations as "When do we revoke read-write git access?" "Do we adopt a forge workflow?"
  * Joseph: While I think it would be good to move to a system of "only the CI bot normally pushes to master, after verifying that tests pass for an approved PR in the forge", that's not a CTI matter.
  * Sunil: How do we make sure we don't have worse service?
  * Carlos: The SOW describes the services we have and pay for and while performance is not explicitly spelled out, bad performance could be discussed and additional mirrors brought online. We'd have to review that with LF IT and discuss costs. See the old SOW: https://lore.kernel.org/cti-tac/2186f48a-12cd-4630-8944-26b9042e924a@redhat.com/
  * Sunil: Will it be black box or will we know what they are deploying?
  * Carlos: We will be using these services, but they will be guaranteed they are free software, and we will be doing review of that.
  * Siddhesh: It has been 10 years that we've been thinking about these issues.
  * Sunil: Funding and managing infrastructure is hard.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.