On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:45 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:58 PM 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 > > extent that CentOS or RHEL actually needs a non-OSS feature -- and I > > don't think they *really* do, because those look like nice-to-haves -- > > then that just means that their needs are incompatible with Fedora's. > > > > So let's fix the requirements first. Attempting to share requirements > > with CentOS and RHEL has clearly failed. > > The CPE team are at the intersection point of CentOS, Fedora and RHEL. We > cannot escape that so any requirements gathered needs to respect that. We > cannot sustain a service of feature for multiple individual stakeholders of > this breadth. This was a driving factor in the exercise and decision. But if the decision is ultimately to go with a hosted service, there's no particular reason it needs to be the exact same hosted service for all three stakeholders, is there? OK, dealing with multiple entirely different forges could be a drag, but it has been suggested in the thread that we could ask Gitlab for a hosted Gitlab CE. That doesn't seem like it'd be difficult. -- 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
