On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:45 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 15:19, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > few days ago I was explaining to someone*, what the Developer Assistant
> > [0] is.
> >
> > When I said something like: "...and you project is exported directly to
> > GitHub [1] if you want", the person I was talking to interrupted me and
> > asked an interesting question:
> >
> > Why our own tools prefer a proprietary service, such as GitHub, over our
> > own infrastructure (Fedora Hosted.org)?
> >
> > The answer is very easy: Because developers prefer GitHub over Fedora
> > Hosted and we want to target on the majority.
> >
> > That leads us to other question: Why do developers prefer GitHub over
> > Fedora Hosted?
> >
> > Of course not each developer uses Fedora etc., but even many of our own
> > projects are usually hosted on GitHub or Bitbucket - see Developer
> > Assistant itself or Yumex as an example. Try to search Fedora on GitHub [2].
> >
> > But other reason is, Fedora Hosted user/developer experience is way worse
> > than GitHub's. Even for a registration or a small change you need to create
> > a ticket, there is no interface for pull requests or similar things (or not
> > that I am aware of). Browsing the projects (user friendly), whatever.
> >
> > I would like to change that and make Fedora Hosted infrastructure
> > something, that can compete GitHub. Or at least provide a service that
> > developers using Fedora would consider as a choice.
> >
> >
> Actually I was going to ask the opposite question: Do we still need
> FedoraHosted? It was created before there was GitHub or Gitorious but
> frankly we are not funded or staffed to make it bigger and better than it
> is now. The systems are 2 virtual machines with one as primary and one as
> fallback. It is not a large set of systems and is made on the backbone of
> compromises of "We won't use FedoraHosted unless you support X VCS
> system"... none of the things that Github or Gitorious or even Savannah has
> had to deal with :).
>
> So we could clean up the front end a lot, but the back end would not be any
> better and would end up being "fresh wine in an old wineskin". There will
> be no speedup in git pull/push, and if more users like the frontend the
> resulting load may cause the backend to go south. If people are interested
> in redoing fedorahosted it needs to be from the backend up. Redundant
> storage, fast mirroring on the backend (gluster and such are not the answer
> because we are dealing with lots of small files that change randomly versus
> large block and similar things where cluster file systems shine), plus
> funding for such services (hardware and software) as they are not cheap.
> [Looking at doing this in the Cloud was coming in around $100.00/day for
> all the different needs.]
-1000 - I don't really know whether we should invest much more than to
keep the current state of fedorahosted sustained, but dropping it?
Please, pretty please, no. There is none really comparable hosting and
of course other might be much nicer for some purposes, but when we were
trying to find new hosting of Linux-PAM upstream there was none other
that would adequately support everything that Linux-PAM upstream needed.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
