20/3/30 11:27(e)an, Iñaki Ucar igorleak idatzi zuen: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 09:15, Julen Landa Alustiza > <jlanda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 20/3/30 08:40(e)an, James Cassell igorleak idatzi zuen: >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020, at 11:47 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 4:12 PM Aoife Moloney <amoloney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ### Other Updates >>>>> >>>>> #### GitForge Decision >>>>> * After evaluating over 300 user stories from multiple stakeholders we >>>>> have aligned on a decision for the Gitforge that CPE will operate for >>>>> the coming years. We are opting for Gitlab for our dist git and >>>>> project hosting and will continue to run pagure.io with community >>>>> assistance. >>>>> * Check out our GitForge decision on the Fedora Community blog >>>>> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/ >>>>> * And at the CentOS blog page >>>>> https://blog.centos.org/2020/03/git-forge-decision/ >>>>> * Keep an eye out for mails in the coming months to the devel lists as >>>>> we plan transitions and next steps with GitLab >>>>> * We would like to express our sincere thank you to all who >>>>> contributed requirements to us! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm going to start with the delivery of this decision sucked. If I >>>> hadn't been alerted to look for this by other folks due to my advocacy >>>> and community building work around Pagure, I would *not* have known >>>> that the decision had been made. This is in contrast to the *big deal* >>>> that was made about starting this "decision process". I don't know if >>> >>> Indeed, it seems like the lead got buried. I, too, had missed the announcement. I guess I'll make more effort to read these weekly status updates. > > I missed that too! This is not a way to communicate such a big > decision. Plus we went from requirements gathering to the final > decision? Where's the rest of the process? > >> From the original blow post: >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ >> >>> How will information be gathered and disseminated? >>> >>> It is recommended that both Fedora Council and CentOS Board gather >> input and present their concerns in a manner that is consistent with how >> their communities work. The RHEL and CPE requirements will be gathered >> through Red Hat communication mechanisms and presented publicly via a >> HackMD file to ensure transparency in their source. This will be >> published and distributed in due course. Additionally, a live video call >> and associated IRC meetings will be held and advertised in advance to >> discuss the requirements, talk about concerns and address any questions. >>> We want transparency to be at the heart of this decision. >> >> Good promise, where are all those? No discussion, no advances, no proper >> information dissemination, nothing :( >> >> This announcement is not even on the first position on communityblog. I >> was expecting at least the same announcement visibility level for the >> final announcement that we had for the initial one: first position on >> communityblog blog + exclusive threads on the mailing lists. >> >> Well, actually I was waiting for those live discussions > > Moreover, Leigh Griffin said in the previous devel thread: > >> And if the requirements are stated we can have an open conversation about >> what does suit it. > > So I was also waiting for those open discussions about the > requirements gathered. I was really looking forward to reading what > Neal (as he's doing now) and others had to say about the requirements > *before* any decision was taken, and how each tool covers them or not, > and what kind of effort would require to cover it in the latter case. > This is *very* disappointing. > > In the final announcement in the Community Blog, this is listed as a > requirement: > >> 24/7 availability in an SLA model and not hosted by the CPE team freeing >> up resourcing and removing the need to staff a dedicated team for a git >> forge SLA which would necessitate a follow-the-sun ops model and a >> heavy investment in stability and observability of the Pagure solution. > > Ok, so I suppose that's it, check mate. I recall that several people > in the initial thread argued that self-hosting was important to avoid > depending on third-parties. Obviously this requirement comes directly > from CPE and supersedes any of such arguments. Also it automatically > rules Pagure out, so GitLab is the only option even if it doesn't > cover many other requierements (as per Neal's analysis). Moreover, the SLA requirement for the git forge is bigger than the SLE of CPE even for the most critical internal services: https://fedora-infra-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/sysadmin-guide/sles/General-SLE.html So, is the outsourced option the unique real option? Why all this then? How can you ask for an 24/7 SLA on the gitforge while we have a lower expectation for the AAA service that the forge will depend on to be functional? > > In the initial thread, I said: > >> When I first read the post, my thought was: wow, what a convoluted and >> abstruse way of saying "we want to abandon Pagure". > > Now that feeling has only been reinforced. > > Iñaki > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Julen Landa Alustiza <jlanda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ 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
