On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:17:41PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:30:26 -0700 > Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 3 March 2015 at 13:22, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Greetings. > > > > > > So, looking at fedorahosted, I thought I would start some discussion > > > about where we are and where we need to go short and longer term. > > > > > > Right now hosted03/04 are rhel6 and still in puppet. Short term, I > > > would very much like to move them to ansible, and ideally to rhel7. > > > > > > I looked into the trac situation upstream. We are currently using > > > 0.12.5 long term release on rhel6 (from epel6). There's a 0.12.6 > > > thats out, but it looks like that might be the last release in the > > > 0.12 series (or there might be a 0.12.7, but thats likely to be > > > it). They are looking at doing releases yearly if they can manage, > > > so 1.2 would appear later this year, then 1.3, etc. It's not clear > > > how long 1.0 will be supported really. At least a year, but not > > > clear after that. > > > > > > So, as I see it, our options are: > > > > > > 1 Just move to ansible, leave on rhel6 for now until we decide > > > something better. > > > > > > 2 Move to ansible and rhel7, and build out trac-1.0 and plugins in > > > epel7. This will take a bit longer since there's so many plugins, > > > but shouldn't really be that hard. > > > > > > 3 Move to ansible and rhel7 and progit. I'm not sure if progit is > > > ready to replace trac though. I think it might need wiki features > > > and also more ticket handling stuff, since some of our projects use > > > trac ticketing heavily. > > > > > > 4 a combo of 2 and 3 (ie, offer trac and progit both) > > > > > > 5. a combo of 1 and 3 (ie, old trac projects stay on old hosted, we > > > move ones that want to progit, eventually we have a flag day and > > > move the rest). > > > > > > > > 5 sounds like the most likely. There are a lot of work flows which > > groups are using with the current trac. If they didn't.. they would > > have probably moved over to github by now. Having the old boxes on > > ansible is probably faster by at least 18 months over getting people > > moved to the newer system. > > I refuse to use github because I personally think its very bad for us as > a open and transparent community and project that prides itself on > making sure everyone can mimic what we do exactly to use something > closed and proprietary. For my own projects I think I would mostly be > okay with progit though something would be needed for ticketing for > releng, wiki space would be good for some projects but is not really > needed on all projects. some like mash only have a git repo on > fedorahosted, there is no associated trac. I think 4 or 5 would both be > viable. [Sorry for catching up late to this thread.] I'm not comfortable yet with the idea of taking on the service build-out that (3) represents above. That's a lot of commitment for something I don't think we can call critical path. Github may be a closed/paid service solution but it doesn't affect the public availability, transparency or forkability of any of our code. And a long-term investment in chasing that solution as a Fedora-specific service to replace hosted is not necessarily the best use of our resources. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
