On 4/1/20 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Has it been demonstrated that either Pagure or Gitlab CE are
"not viable" for the purposes Fedora needs?
Hey Adam!
I agree with you that Pagure and Gitlab CE are both viable for Fedora's
needs in terms of feature matrices and requirements. We have shipped a
handful or so of Fedora releases over the last 3ish years since src.fpo
came online as proof!
However, the CPE team does not have the resources to do a good job on
maintaining that system, and Bodhi, and Koji, and the 187 other apps (I
think we did count the apps we maintained at one point and ended up with
a list that was about 190 long!). The responsibility to engineer ratio
is not healthy or sustainable.
I agree with the sentiment that this decision process was not done in
the open. There was a thread on a Fedora Council mailing list, but I
personally was not aware of the existence of that list until someone
linked that thread here, and I expect that most of the Fedora community
probably does not closely monitor that list. Thus, I don't think that
really counts as a venue for open discussion with the community.
I expected to see discussion about it here, on this list, because this
is where all of the users for the proposed system can reasonably
expected to be. I also expected that discussion to allow community
members to be meaningfully involved in the process: requirement
gathering, analysis, proposals, counter proposals, counter counter
proposals, etc. That's what an open decision process would have looked
like in my opinion.
_______________________________________________
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
