On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik <ekulik@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > > > have to > > > > > maintain the integration as a downstream patch forever as > > > > > upstream might > > > > > not want it. > > > > > > > > They've provided pretty good support to various other open > > > > source > > > > communities such as GNOME and Freedesktop/Xorg. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but neither of those communities actually have terribly > > > special > > > requirements. In fact, those communities either had *nothing* in > > > terms > > > of infrastructure (FreeDesktop/Xorg) or were willing to throw > > > everything away for GitLab (GNOME). We would not fit in either > > > bucket, > > > which makes GitLab a very awkward fit for us. > > > > “Throw everything away”? Just how much of the transition did you > > follow? > > > > GitLab was more than accommodating in pulling features out of the > > enterprise edition into the community one that were crucial for our > > workflows. It was not done on a whim and I really resent your > > statements here. > > > > I followed it pretty closely. In the GNOME case, you were willing to > throw away Bugzilla, CGit, and older CI infrastructure to replace it > with GitLab. You guys also renamed some of your repositories to > accommodate the restrictions on project naming by GitLab. A lot of > retooling was required as part of the transition to GitLab for GNOME. What? Do you suggest adding more infrastructure to maintain on (at the time) a singular sysadmin? Bugzilla and cgit were to be made redundant, that’s the whole point here. The “older CI infrastructure” is still there and has been semi-broken forever, so that’s as immaterial as it gets. The development for the replacement was only nudged by the GitLab transition. I don’t even know how to approach the accusation that we bent over backwards to appease the overlords, dictating repository naming. Yes, GTK, most prominently, was renamed as a result. It really was more a pretext, because no one cares about the plus and it was historical baggage. > That, by my definition, is throwing away everything. It had knock on > effects for everyone downstream as well, as all the tools for > tracking > GNOME also broke and needed to change. Again, that's fine if the > community is generally accepting of this pain, but it is still pain, > even if you refuse to acknowledge it. Please don’t say I’m in denial just because I don’t agree with what you’re trying to convey here. My observation is that the pipelines that were built only managed to improve developers’ workflows by automating as much as possible with a tool that tries to provide that. Those, who preferred the old ways, adjusted as best they could, too, even only taking patches in GitLab issues instead of working with merge requests. You can only imagine how many external contributions those projects see. -- Ernestas Kulik Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems (Core Services/ABRT) Red Hat Czech, s.r.o. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
