Possibly create PRs instead of Issues for closed tickets with branches

[mkoeppe]

Then we could use pull_request_events such as https://docs.github.com/en/developers/webhooks-and-events/events/issue-event-types#head_ref_restored

[kwankyu]

What do we need to use pull_request_event for?

We want all converted tickets be listed altogether in "Issues". Don't we? I think conceptually "ticket" is closer to "issue" than "PR". As Tobias pointed out, "issue" can be linked with a branch in sagetrac-mirror repo. Right?

[mkoeppe]

What do we need to use pull_request_event for?

It would give us a way to show changes to the commit (from a push / force push) in the native GitHub format instead of using an issue comment.

We want all converted tickets be listed altogether in "Issues". Don't we? I think conceptually "ticket" is closer to "issue" than "PR".

Not necessarily. In the transition guide, "For contributing a change that does not address an existing open Issue", we direct developers to open a PR.

So also for the migration, tickets that start out with a (unique) branch could quite naturally be represented by a PR.

But it's probably not worth the extra work.

As Tobias pointed out, "issue" can be linked with a branch in sagetrac-mirror repo. Right?

I think this is a beta feature, and I don't think I have a way to do this in the migration archive.

[kwankyu]

As Tobias pointed out, "issue" can be linked with a branch in sagetrac-mirror repo. Right?

I think this is a beta feature, and I don't think I have a way to do this in the migration archive.

As you mentioned before, there's "Create a branch, for this issue or link a pull request." button. So it seems there is an official concept of "issue linked with a branch". Moreover see https://github.blog/changelog/2022-09-07-link-existing-branches-to-an-issue/

It would be nice if this could be done by the migration script. It would be unfortunate if there's no API for this though..

What do we need to use pull_request_event for?

It would give us a way to show changes to the commit (from a push / force push) in the native GitHub format instead of using an issue comment.

Okay. But this is just one of the changes made to an issue(PR). I guess not all changes could be give in GitHub format anyway.

We want all converted tickets be listed altogether in "Issues". Don't we? I think conceptually "ticket" is closer to "issue" than "PR".

Not necessarily. In the transition guide, "For contributing a change that does not address an existing open Issue", we direct developers to open a PR.

So also for the migration, tickets that start out with a (unique) branch could quite naturally be represented by a PR.

But there' s subtle difference. Typical comments to a ticket (with a branch) are as follow

Comments before a branch -> a branch is attached -> Comments about the branch

but the comments to a PR are all about the branch. Hence it could be slightly confusing to read the comments of the ticket as comments to a PR.

But it's probably not worth the extra work.

I think it's better to make distinction between the issues converted from tickets and new issues (or new PRs) as we are making a new workflow.

As I understand it, by the new workflow, we will have three types of "work"

• Issue linked with a PR (numbered separately)
• PR without a corresponding issue
• Issue with no PR

corresponding to a single ticket in trac.

[mkoeppe]

As Tobias pointed out, "issue" can be linked with a branch in sagetrac-mirror repo. Right?

I think this is a beta feature, and I don't think I have a way to do this in the migration archive.

As you mentioned before, there's "Create a branch, for this issue or link a pull request." button. So it seems there is an official concept of "issue linked with a branch". Moreover see https://github.blog/changelog/2022-09-07-link-existing-branches-to-an-issue/

It would be nice if this could be done by the migration script. It would be unfortunate if there's no API for this though..

OK, I have created such an attached branch (test-attached-branch). I'll download a migration archive (#82) and check whether (and how) it is reflected in the archive. Documentation is very sparse unfortunately.

[mkoeppe]

I think it's better to make distinction between the issues converted from tickets and new issues (or new PRs) as we are making a new workflow.

I agree.

As I understand it, by the new workflow, we will have three types of "work"

• Issue linked with a PR (numbered separately)
• PR without a corresponding issue
• Issue with no PR

corresponding to a single ticket in trac.

Yes, that's right

[mkoeppe]

I have created such an attached branch (test-attached-branch). I'll download a migration archive (#82) and check whether (and how) it is reflected in the archive.

This information does not show up in the migration archive.

[kwankyu]

OK. Then it implies that there is no way to embed the attached branch information to the migration archive?

[mkoeppe]

Yes, I think so.