Forgejo Migration

[TheBlueMatt]

Github has decided we cannot ever use actions again, because of some undefined possible ToS violation that they won't specify. For now we should try migrating to the rust-bitcoin forgejo at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org. I've started a migration which is now slowly copying github issue+PRs. Hopefully it'll be done by tomorrow but for now that means (I believe) new comments, reviews, issues, and PRs after this one will not be migrated and may be lost. There's more details in all the pain we've had at bitcoin/bitcoin#35574 but suffice to say github isn't really an option anymore. Hopefully forgejo works out, but IMO we should keep this repo (as a mirror) and allow issues filed here, but have a bot that auto-closes PRs.

[TheBlueMatt]

Note that forgejo migration is quite slow due to github's rate limits, but once its done the repo should be available at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

[joostjager]

CI is a separable concern. I'd prefer to just move that to self-hosted using a tool that integrates with github via webhooks to avoid depending on actions. Code, issues and PRs can then remain unchanged.

I think a full platform migration carries much more risk of unforeseen corner cases. Workflows, bots, integrations, tooling that uses github api. Doing CI first is much less impactful and avoids putting the whole workflow at stake.

[TheBlueMatt]

Migration failed a second time due to github API issues. This time issue #1487 is real, but it doesn't show up in the list page (or API) - https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed&page=22 . claude is busy fixing it but since escalation to the devrel team managed to get CI unstuck let's use github normally this week and migrate over the weekend when it can finish on its own.

[joostjager]

Now that the immediate pressure to move off GitHub has eased, I think we should take a step back and do a deeper evaluation of what we'd actually end up with before committing to a full migration.

Getting CI running there seems like a good first step, even before moving code, issues, or PRs over. That should tell us whether the functionality is there to cover our needs.

The other big thing for me is the review experience. Details like how inline comments are attached to code, what happens to them across pushes and rebases, and whether old review context remains easy to follow are pretty important for this project. It would be good to test that with a few real PRs before deciding the migration path.

[joostjager]

It indeed looks like Forgejo isn't tracking comment positions when a branch is rewritten.

[TheBlueMatt]

It indeed looks like Forgejo isn't tracking comment positions when a branch is rewritten.

This is allegedly fixed in the next version, which I've now upgraded us to.

[TheBlueMatt]

Getting CI running there seems like a good first step, even before moving code, issues, or PRs over. That should tell us whether the functionality is there to cover our needs.

Yes, I intend to get a PR running for CI over there before we "switch over". It should be easy but I haven't had a chance to really look yet.