On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:59:28 -0900 "Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Agreed. > 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) A big +10. > 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 . Agreed. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
