Clement Verna <cverna(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Clement Verna <cverna(a)fedoraproject.org> 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