Re: Please comment on your use of trac

Jay Daley <> Thu, 25 February 2021 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F983A0DB8 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lBj-27QjFzZp; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 634E23A0DB3; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Please comment on your use of trac
From: Jay Daley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:40:03 +1300
Cc: Robert Sparks <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:40:07 -0000

I’m in the process of drafting the RFP for this work and I want to check a few things base on your replies:

1.  It sounds as it everyone is comfortable with a migration to a new wiki system 

2.  A few WGs - EMAILCORE, DMARC and TSVWG are using trac for issue tracking and need migrating to a new issue tracker.  Would you be happy if that was GitHub? (DMARC has already indicated this is acceptable).

3.  Many more WGs used to use trac for issue tracking but no longer do.  We need to find a way to archive these for the historical record, but I want to check you would be happy if that was just an export to a text file that could then be a wiki page rather than moving them to a new issue tracking system?

4.  The following features for a new wiki system have been recommended:

	* document names resolve to links to the documents without having to require explicit URLs.
	* I would like a markdown based wiki system.

5.  We are currently considering moving to a *single* wiki instead of multiple different instances of the same wiki.  The means the following features are needed to support the various ways that WGs and other groups use their wikis:

	• support of OIDC for authentication with Datatracker
	• permissions system (which will be limited to roles that Datatracker know about)

(so far the product that seems to meet these requirements the best is Wiki.js)

Any comments, or any more to add?


> On 4/02/2021, at 5:17 AM, Robert Sparks <> wrote:
> We currently have instances of trac configured for each working group. Only some are being used.
> If your group is using trac, are you using anything essentially trac-specific that you find important?
> Would you be ok migrating (with help) to a different wiki system and a different issue tracking system?
> The trac project itself is lagging with Python development - stable still only runs on Python 2.7 and while there appears to be work towards Python 3, it is not yet functional, and is not progressing quickly. We are working around it by encapsulating it in docker instances running 2.7.
> I've had several people suggest we should stop supporting it, and I'd like to know if that would be a particular hardship for any group.
> RjS

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director