On Nov 28, 2007 9:15 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Frankly, I don't think the Board has any business in this discussion > yet. There are known pain points in providing this (and switching SCMs > all together), the benefits to Fedora are little to none at the moment, > and it can be hosted elsewhere. I don't see much here that needs rubber stamping from the board. Let me sum up where i think the discussion is at: 1) A community member has done the necessary work to implement a way to make a copy of fedora's cvs and turn it into something git friendly. This gives downstream people who are comfortable with git a way a new interact with our package sources. This is not a bad thing, and I decree that as a board member such initiative should be applauded. I'd send him a t-shirt and some stickers, but I don't have any. 2) This person feels comfortable enough with how its working to want to expose this as a public consumable for other people. The question is how to best do that. 3) There are some concerns about doing this as part of infrastructure right now. There is some resource duplication here and since git has not been selected as the next piece of technology to use its not clear that providing git as a fedora services versus some other technology is worth the resource burn. If there was a long term directive to move to git for Fedora's usage, then there would be a compelling reason to burn internal infrastructure resources to duplicate cvs into git. 4) Infrastructure is willing to help make it easier for a community hosted solution to get access to cvs for duplication. Do I have the story so far? If there isn't a cohesive plan to start transitioning to git internally over sometime scale, I'm not sure exactly what I'm suppose to be supporting. I've got other things I'd like to see infrastructure diskspace and human resources used for like spin source isos, that I feel are far more critical to provide than a duplication of cvs content as a git consumable. I mean I'm not going to actively lobby against duplicating git but I've no reason to prefer to see resources used for this over other things. Here's the reality as I see it. We simply can not do everything as part of internal infrastructure. Sometimes this project will need to rely on community provided services to extend the projects capabilities into new areas. Some of these things will eventually be pulled into the project as an internal service based on the success and growth of the service while it was being hosted externally. Other services won't be for a variety of reasons (though none of the efforts should be considered failures even if they are discarded or reach a niche audience) What the Board needs to figure out is how to make it possible to make the Fedora brand a big enough tent to encompass services that are not internally hosted, in an equitable manner. Encourage people to host community services, give credit where credit is due, and give these external community services some credibility as being an outgrowth of the project and some recognition as to the effort being made regardless as whether the service is adopted/co-opted by the Fedora project offically . -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
