On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:16 AM Dan Čermák <dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dan Čermák <dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Welcome to our lives!
>>> If it was mathematically possible to go above 100% that's how much
>>> agreement you
>>> would have from us.
>>>
>>
>> If Red Hat is using Pagure internally, it is really odd to discuss
>> replacing Pagure with something else.
The usage is not uniform and not being 100% supported / hosted by the CPE team. The rationale behind a requirements gathering process is clearly outlined in the blog post and we have never said we are replacing Pagure, we may opt to drive resourcing and time into it as one of the viable paths forward.
The only viable replacement is
>> Gitlab which is a open code project written in a language that isn't a
>> strong fit for Fedora.
There are 3 viable forges under consideration.
Red Hat should be assigning more resources
>> (development & infrastructure) to add the features needed to extend Pagure
>> going forward and reduce the burden on the CPE team. Has CPE leadership
>> considered talking internally about that?
This is a key factor in the requirements exercise to know if Pagure is the optimal choice and to know how much to build and at what cost Vs other initiatives we could be focusing on.
>
> I have to second this: why are we even *having* this discussion, when
> Pagure is used internally at RedHat and thus RedHat will require some
> form of maintenance anyway? Why is then the RedHat CPE team pushing to
> move away from Pagure, especially to Gitlab?
We never stated we are moving to Gitlab. We stated why the CPE team are considering this exercise, if you have questions I'm happy to try clarify them but I urge you to re-read the problem statement and approach in the blog post.
Which albeit being a great
> platform, is written in Ruby and there's a lot less Ruby devs in the
> Fedora community than Python devs.
I have to apologize, this was far too harsh.
It seems to be an emotive topic but thank you for apologising! I still wanted to address the above though in case there was a concern.
What I wanted to say is the
following: wouldn't it be mutually beneficial for RedHat, Fedora and
specifically the CPE Team too, that someone¹ takes over maintenance of
Pagure since it's used by us all and there appear to be enough people
that want to continue using it?
It possibly might be, when the analysis is complete we can check that out. It would be premature and based on no real data to form that decision right now, hence the requirements exercise. Whatever solution is chosen will hopefully satisfy the requirements put forward by Fedora, CentOS, Red Hat and the CPE team. We might not hit all of them perfectly, there might be some trade offs in functionality but we hope to transparently show what those trade offs would be and why we take a certain path.
Cheers,
Dan
¹: Yeah, I know that this is actually the tricky part to find this
someone…
_______________________________________________
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
Leigh Griffin
Engineering Manager
Communications House
Cork Road, Waterford City
lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx
M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin
_______________________________________________ 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
