On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 14:57, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 12:06 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:57, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements.
> >
> > Of course, but the problem is that the requirements identified by CPE
> > are wildly inconsistent with the actual requirements of the Fedora
> > community. The Pagure we have right now seems to be working fine for
> > Fedora. All we really need is occasional light maintenance and ensuring
> > the infrastructure keeps running. I don't think we'd be having this
> > conversation now at all if "dist-git must be open source" was a listed
> > requirement, as it should have been from the beginning.
> >
> > We don't need merge trains or MR approvals or mobile apps (seriously?)
> > or private comments or gists or analytics or basically any of the other
> > requirements that Neal has lampooned. I understand CentOS and RHEL
> > really want merge trains, so maybe that one is a good faith
> > requirement, but I honestly don't think most of the rest of them are.
> > The list seems to have been concocted by looking at GitLab features
> > exclusive to Enterprise and Ultimate editions and then listing as many
> > as possible, not by actually listing features that are really actually
> > needed to make things work. I know the requirements came from
> > stakeholders and not from CPE, but the requirements are so far removed
> > from Fedora's actual needs that it has jeopardized the legitimacy of
> > the rest of the process. Fedora simply doesn't need any of it. To the
> >
>
> I think one of the problems is that every person here says they know what
> Fedora needs and quite frankly after you add up all the things it comes
> into the grab bag we got for a Git replacement. You have your opinions, and
> so do 800 other developers. Right now the people who want a complete FLOSS
> solution are yelling but for the last 5+ years the people who have been
> yelling that GitLab/GitHub was a better solution have been yelling. Those
> complaints have been just as strong and vociferous with lots of
> insinuations about wasting time, money, and resources when Git* was there.
Let's not conflate things here. Gitlab CE *is* a complete FLOSS
solution.
> In the end, we have to realize that the Fedora community is not a solid
> mass and there is rarely a clear majority. The infrastructure we have is a
> highly complicated mess of interlocking tools to try and deal with the fact
> there is no majority of what people want, and that they want new stuff
> every 3-5 months added. That continually adding complexity has made getting
> people involved in infrastructure harder and harder because for every group
> which said 'oh drop this, it isn't needed' there were multiple groups
> saying 'we use this heavily and would stop existing if you took it away'.
You seem to have jumped away from "git forge requirements" somewhere in
the middle here and are now talking more generally about stuff we have
talked about lots and lots of times before. We know there is a serious
resource issue underlying all this. No-one is debating that. But that
doesn't actually seem to be a direct answer to Michael's post.
The issue I tried and failed to communicate is that decisions are not made in a vacuum. Everything else I added was me going through various levels of grief and confusing my denial and anger for acceptance.
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ 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
