On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:08 AM 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.
>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.
We published the full requirements gathered from all stakeholders alongside the blog
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 felt that the discussions came to a natural conclusion for each stakeholder group. I should have returned to that thread and updated folks that we had taken all the requirements in, that's on me, you have my apologies.
> 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.
I can't speak to how the community blog structures it's priority queue but I opened the mailing thread this morning due to the weekend.
Well, actually I was waiting for those live discussions
>
>> there were folks counting on nobody noticing this or not, but this is
>> not a good way to deliver effectively a major decision like this. I
>> also absolutely *refuse* to deal with the fact that this thread was
>> split into three mailing lists. All three are connected to this
>> thread, and I will take responses from all of them and follow them
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Enough about that, let's talk about the actual decision.
>
> Thanks for your comprehensive response here and for all the work you've done to drive Pagure forward.
>
> V/r,
> James Cassell
>
>
>>
>> So, you're going with GitLab. It's interesting to note that the
>> particulars about going to GitLab are not even figured out. It is
>> curious that "SAAS" is mentioned very prominently. That made me a bit
>> more curious, so I looked at the "final" feature requirements.
>> Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed.
>>
>> To put it bluntly, there are *zero* free and open source solutions
>> that satisfy your needs. From this, I understood why you said GitLab
>> and SaaS. You want GitLab Ultimate, the proprietary solution that
>> includes several extra features on top to satisfy the following
>> requirements (quoted from your blog post):
>>
>>> * There is a need for CentOS Stream to integrate with a kernel workflow that is an automated bot driven merging solution (merge trains). This allows for richer CI capabilities and minimizes the need for human interaction
>>> * Gitlab allows for project planning capability which could make multiple trackers such as Taiga redundant, allowing for the planning and tracking to reside within the repo. It would enrich the current ticket based solution that Pagure has evolved into for some groups
>>
>> These two requirements *alone* automatically force us to GitLab
>> Enterprise Ultimate Edition, as there is no other solution available
>> that satisfies those requirements in one product. Merge trains *is* a
>> feature of Pagure when combined with Zuul, but GitLab's project
>> planning features do not exist in *any* FOSS product, including GitLab
>> CE (or GitLab Core as they call it now).
>>
>> There are mentions of other work that CPE team wants to do to better
>> improve Fedora. Okay, sure. I even agree with some of them. And the
>> time bomb that is FAS is definitely worth the attention (note that I
>> am somewhat involved in the development of the Fedora AAA solution and
>> am also working on trying to develop a community around it so it
>> doesn't implode like virtually every other project under the Fedora
>> umbrella, more on *that* a bit later).
>>
>> However, nobody has given me or anyone else in the Pagure community
>> (which yes, is more than Pierre-Yves, thank you very much!) any
>> concrete details of deficiencies they'd see that is not satisfiable by
>> the community within a year before now. I've spent a little over a day
>> analyzing the user stories and thinking about the gaps between Pagure
>> and what the community wants, and I want to give some perspective here
>> for some of these. I'm happy to accept refutations and other details
>> to further enhance the color of these stories, of course.
>>
>>> 5
>>> As a RH Developer
>>> I need the ability to privately comment on a PR
>>> so that confidential information does not leak outside Red Hat
>>
>> Ignoring the mountainous levels of terrible problems that such a
>> feature causes us *now* in the Red Hat Bugzilla, Pierre-Yves and I
>> were literally discussing this with a Mageian who was interested in
>> this feature for Pagure weeks ago. We had identified the feature as
>> not difficult to implement but also simultaneously nobody really
>> *wanted it now*. It surprises me that this is something that should be
>> considered an important feature to preserve. It's actually a very
>> *rare* feature, and does not exist in any forge today, presumably
>> because it's actually a horrifically bad idea and antithetical to open
>> development. GitLab itself lacks this feature, in all variants.
>>
>>> 16
>>> As a general user
>>> I want to be able to create a bot/service account
>>> That integrates with the gitforge in the same way as a human does
>>
>> This is a nice ask, but it's not a reasonably easy one to implement
>> with our current system. This is a problem I've struggled with at
>> $DAYJOB with GitLab as well, and frankly, if you have account
>> integration with a single-sign-on system (which virtually all
>> large-scale Git forge instances do), you can't really easily have this
>> without causing major problems. Not the least of which is how you
>> resolve account namespace collisions. There are also problems with
>> maintaining and auditing, too. But it's certainly something I'd like
>> to see in any forge (note that none implement this today either).
>>
>>> 29
>>> As a General User
>>> I want to access repos fully over https
>>> For environments where SSH is blocked
>>
>> I would be really curious if the Red Hat Infrastructure Security guys
>> have changed their opinion on this after four years of blocking the
>> development of this feature in Pagure. The two major reasons we don't
>> have this in Pagure are:
>>
>> * There is a very strong push to not provide a way to bypass the SSO
>> (ignoring the fact that SSH keys are effectively a bypass, but most
>> security people are two-faced about this anyway)
>> * There is a very strong push to not provide LDAP integration so that
>> the required HTTP(S) Git proxy server would not be able to be
>> implemented.
>>
>> Note that for GitLab, unless you configure it to have access to LDAP
>> or set up personal access tokens, you cannot use HTTP(S) push at all.
>> Once again, this totally bypasses SSO. If the same rules that applied
>> to Pagure apply to GitLab, nobody is getting this feature anytime soon
>> with GitLab. If the attitude toward this feature has finally changed,
>> I'd love to know.
>>
>> Also, for those who don't know, Fedora's Dist-Git supports HTTPS push,
>> and has for almost a year:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/HTTPS-commits
>>
>> This is done by *forcing* an SSO flow for *fedpkg* itself and
>> leveraging it as a credential and auth point. Unfortunately, this is
>> not a general purpose feature because there's not an easy way to do
>> that, so it's unavailable on pagure.io at this time. This mechanism
>> for HTTP push is *not* possible with GitLab, and would be quite
>> difficult to implement due to the crazy architecture internally. But
>> if more *normal* HTTPS is acceptable (like through auth tokens or LDAP
>> auth), then this is something that could be relatively quickly added
>> to Pagure (there was some old code that never got merged two years
>> ago, I still have it archived somewhere...).
>>
>>> 31
>>> As a General User
>>> I can request access rights to a repository
>>> So that I can contribute in a low friction manner
>>
>> I honestly don't know entirely what this means. Are we talking about
>> having partial commit access (commit access to only some branches)? If
>> so, there's a PR out for implementing this in Pagure under review:
>> https://pagure.io/pagure/pull-request/4786
>>
>>
>>> 34
>>> As a General User
>>> I want a mobile native app
>>> To allow me contribute while away from my desk
>>
>> I don't have words for this... You folks know that only GitHub.com has
>> an official mobile app, right? And the experience is not great...
>> 🤦♂️
>>
>>> 42
>>> As a General User
>>> want a GUI to interface with the system as well as a CLI
>>> so new users have an easier way to interface with it
>>
>> I'd like to point out that most popular GUIs for Git stuff are not
>> forge specific and do not even do much for forge integration. But
>> sure...?
>>
>>> 44
>>> As a General User
>>> I want a temporary file (gist)
>>> So that I can share code easily
>>
>> There seems to be a misunderstanding here... Gists are not temporary.
>> They're lightweight *permanent* Git repos (in GitHub). GitLab stores
>> them (called Snippets) as permanent things in the database (not a Git
>> repo). Are you trying to conflate pastebin use-cases here? That's
>> probably a very bad idea...
>>
>>> 46
>>> As a General User
>>> I want to be notified of CVEs in my code
>>> so that I can stay on top of critical vulnerabilities
>>
>> There are *zero* FOSS solutions for this in the forge space. This
>> feature does *not* exist below GitLab Ultimate (the former Gemnasium
>> service was integrated into it).
>>
>>> 47
>>> As a General User
>>> I want integrated keyword support
>>> to allow me automate a lot of my actions such as a rebuild / retest
>>
>> This is not a forge feature, this is a CI service feature. And note,
>> GitLab CI does not support this.
>>
>>> 49
>>> As a General User
>>> I want to gain analytics and insights from my code
>>> so that I can have historic context to make decisions moving forward
>>
>> GitLab Enterprise features...
>>
>>> 51
>>> As a General User
>>> I would like to track my work in an Agile manner
>>> allowing me centralise all my planning in my forge and gain insights into how I am working.
>>
>> GitLab Enterprise features, as mentioned earlier.
>>
>>> 56
>>> As a General User
>>> I want registry integration
>>> so that I can store dependencies
>>
>> No, you don't. You *really* don't want this. Are you *sure* you know
>> what you're asking for? You're suggesting three things here:
>>
>> * OSS solutions for this (including Fedora's own package/container
>> infrastructure and hosted quay.io) are not good enough
>> * You are ready to have even more arbitrary data stored in the Git
>> system that may not follow our legal compliance
>> * You are willing to pay the cost of having even more data stored
>>
>>> 57
>>> As a General User
>>> I want the ability to have a private branch
>>> So that I do not need to leave the code tree I am already in
>>
>> Just so everyone is *crystal clear*: you literally cannot do this. Git
>> does not have a concept of private branches or private refs within a
>> repository. You can have private forks, of course. And Pagure supports
>> those just fine, just like GitLab and GitHub do.
>>
>> (also note, we *intentionally* do not have private repos turned on...
>> if we want this, we could just flip a switch...)
>>
>>> 62
>>> As a General User
>>> I want automerges when specific acceptance criteria are met
>>> So that I do not need manual intervention
>>
>> So... Mergify then? This is not *currently* a GitLab feature, and
>> Mergify does not support GitLab, last I checked. Only GitHub.com. It's
>> been on my bucket for a while to look at extending Mergify to support
>> Pagure for this, as it's a really nice feature...
>>
>> I want to take a moment to reflect on something that has been on my
>> mind for a while now: Fedora has not done a good job being an umbrella
>> organization. As an organization, we have done a huge disservice to
>> all Fedora-affiliated projects by not allocating any community
>> development effort or marketing effort. I know that Matthew Miller
>> feels Fedora should evolve to being an operating systems factory[1]
>> and to some extent that isn't a bad thought. But the Fedora Project
>> was always intended to be more than just the Fedora Linux
>> distribution. It has always been intended to be a home for Free and
>> Open Source innovation. In a Hacker News thread last year[2], I had
>> reflected on how proud I have been to be part of Fedora because we, as
>> a community, weren't willing to just give up like so many others do.
>> When FOSS solutions were inadequate, we built better ones. We've
>> invented things that didn't exist before, and jump-started
>> conversations about concepts that people didn't think of before. But
>> there has been a bit of a dark side to this for Fedora. We've rarely
>> given our projects an opportunity to grow beyond us. Off the top of my
>> head, the *only* project that technically *started* in Fedora and
>> became successful was Ansible. And if I'm being totally brutally
>> honest, it was only successful because the engineers who were
>> passionate about it had to quit Red Hat and create AnsibleWorks to
>> push it to success. It was successful *despite* Fedora. Maybe soon
>> we'll be able to add HyperKitty and Postorius to that, as I've been
>> seeing deployments of that come online over the past few months. It's
>> taken a while, but HyperKitty is finally taking off. There was one
>> person I talked to who told me that HyperKitty made mailing lists
>> enjoyable and she didn't know the project came from Fedora originally.
>> Again, seeing success despite Fedora.
>>
>> When I talk to folks in other communities and show them some of the
>> infrastructure projects we've developed as part of trying to build
>> communities around them, I've literally had people tell me that they
>> wish they had known we made them before, because it solved all their
>> problems they were struggling with. That's both amazingly uplifting
>> and terribly depressing at the same time. I'm not even putting in a
>> lot of effort and we get so much more out of it. It didn't take a lot
>> for me to get openSUSE interested in our new AAA solution and
>> contributing. That tells me that we're just not trying. And really,
>> that's obvious. Even a simple comparison of the Fedora and openSUSE
>> project landing pages show that Fedora gives zero attention to the
>> projects that exist under its umbrella. When you look at the openSUSE
>> landing page, the distribution and major software projects under the
>> umbrella are all broadcasted there. It makes it so much easier to
>> discover and generate interest. I'm not saying I love every aspect of
>> the openSUSE marketing. Far from it! But this is one thing they do
>> right that we do terribly wrong. And then we sit back and wonder why
>> our projects fail to generate interest beyond a few folks in Fedora
>> itself. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is something we need to
>> fix for *all* our projects: present and future.
>>
>> In the end, I think the biggest disappointment of this process is that
>> it feels like it demonstrates that Fedora leadership and management is
>> not as committed to its mission and vision[3] as I hoped it was. I
>> realize that I should not be surprised by this. Most of the leadership
>> and management are no longer the idealistic people they were when they
>> first became involved. And it's even harder to be idealistic when it's
>> so easy to give in when you work for "open source company" that
>> increasingly uses proprietary software to manage its workflow (to be
>> fair, I think at this point virtually all major companies do this,
>> which more or less demonstrates the amoral nature of these entities).
>> Maybe I'm just an old remnant of a bygone era, but I personally remain
>> somewhat idealistic, even as I have progressed over the years. I also
>> remain hopeful that other members of the community are of similar
>> mind. And perhaps this is a bit of a fool's hope, but I hope the CPE
>> team reconsiders their decision, or at least would be willing to
>> provide more context on the gaps they felt pushed them over so they
>> could be prioritized for Pagure development (and maybe we can develop
>> them fast enough so that we don't have to switch...).
>>
>> I think this is also an important indicator that Open Source has *not*
>> won and it is *not* the default. People who keep saying otherwise need
>> to seriously look hard at the landscape and realize that we have a
>> long way to go before Open Source becomes the true default. It
>> behooves us to become cognizant of this and push for freedom whenever
>> and wherever we can.
>>
>> As for me? Well, I will do my best to try to help develop the Pagure
>> community. I'm still committed to assisting the Free Software
>> Foundation and other communities with using and contributing to
>> Pagure. I hope others within the community will consider helping too.
>> Pagure provides unique features that do not exist in any other forge,
>> in large part because it is driven by an ideal that open data and
>> freedom should be core tenants of software project management. And
>> hey, I hear whispers of new Pagure instances being set up all the
>> time! We're doing something right here, and it'd be a shame to
>> squander it.
>>
>> Heh, the irony is that I started using and contributing to Pagure
>> *because* I was burned by GitLab...
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/ZBU4MYRMMAE2Z7DL4NPPECTMX2FBQAVL/
>> [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356307
>> [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
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
