On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 22:33 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > 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. Okay, look, at a certain point I start to feel like we're trapped in some sort of Kafka novel here. At the outset of this whole mess, quite a lot of people said "well this is obviously just all a pretext for dropping Pagure and going to hosted Gitlab". Much offence seemed to be taken at this, and much was made of this absolutely not being the case at all, and Pagure being definitely a contender, and - as was pointed out upthread - how there would be public meetings and feedback sessions and a whole three-ring circus before a final decision was made. Which very definitely hadn't already been made, or anything. And now three days into this thread, you're saying "well, CPE doesn't have the resources to maintain Pagure". So, what, people were right in the first place, and this was really just the Dump Pagure Project all along? If so what was the point of all this half-baked kabuki nonsense? Why not just say so up-front? If CPE never thought it had the resources to maintain Pagure and Pagure was never really a contender, and Github was as clearly a non-starter as Leigh says it was, why didn't we just say "yeah no we're going to Gitlab" four months (or whatever it was) ago and save all of this silliness? We agree that this process wasn't actually very open at all, but *even if it had been*, if the result was preordained, what would have been the point? Also, why does CPE not *at least* have its ducks very definitely in a row about exactly how much work is actually going to be involved in all the options here? How has this decision taken several months and yet when people ask "okay, so exactly what is the plan for re-doing all the Pagure<->dist-git integration with Gitlab, and how much work and how long is that going to take?", the answer is "uh, we don't know, we're going to figure it out now"? Why does the blog post that announced this decision - talk quite a lot about what the plan is with regard to pagure.io (that's clearly what it usually means when it says "Pagure", in context) but nothing at all about what the plan is wrt dist-git? Not to mention that this subthread is about the circumstances in which Fedora has decided it will accept non-free infra, and that "not viable and not available" quote. If we count absolutely anything that involves CPE actually doing any work beyond paying someone else to run it as "not viable", well, yeah, that's going to render an awful lot of stuff "not viable", isn't it? But I don't think that's how many people would necessarily have expected that text to be interpreted. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ 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
