Clement Verna <cverna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Clement Verna <cverna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally >> disagree. I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience >> tailored for our community from beginning to end. That's why we have >> Koji, Bodhi, Dist-Git, and many other tools in that part of the >> lifecycle. The packager experience is literally the lifeblood of the >> project, and our contributors are the core of what makes Fedora >> successful. Pagure gives us an opportunity to do right by them that I >> *really* don't think we can do with any alternatives. > > I am not convinced that having a custom git forge is mandatory to > provide an great experience to the community. I wasn't really around > the community before Pagure, but I as far as I understand it the > experience was better before Pagure and people were able to do more > self servicing. I believe that there is an alternative to having the > packager workflow tightly coupled to the git forge, this is also maybe > a good opportunity to rethink some of that workflow and explore > different solutions. Well, this continues to conflate "git forge" and "solution for dist-git". Before pagure, we had a (no-webui) git serving dist-git with other services (e.g., pkgdb) stapled on. More self-servicing was possible because it was a more mature project. In my opinion, the move to pagure happened prematurely due to lack of feature parity - a problem we're still dealing with today, which I think is what your "self servicing" is in reference to. Before pagure, we also had fedorahosted, which was our solution for hosting projects, combining trac and a few other things. Migration was *painful*, and there have been many rocky parts along the way, but the experience now is definitely better than fedorahosted. It's far less pleasant than a github project, though. My impression is that most folks on this thread are more worried about dist-git and its integrations than a general git forge, while it feels like all CPE wants to talk about is the git forge. You can't just use a git forge as a dist-git: it takes a lot of integration work, which is invisible because right now it's been done and just works™. The refusal to consider that this work exists in the decision worries me. So long as it's open and we host it, I don't personally care what we choose - as long as we can actually use it. Thanks, --Robbie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
