On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better discoverability and
visibility in the generic
>> development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a
>> read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out there. We
>> can use it as an opportunity to show what we do, but also to teach how
>> we do it. For example OpenStack has a bot which replies on every
>> GitHub issue and pull-request to the read-only mirrored repository
>> with a manual on how one can send the same change through the
>> OpenStack development process. We would need to do it the same way
>> anyway, if we land on anything other than GitHub.
>
> I'm sorry, no. I absolutely despise the Gerrit workflow that OpenStack
> uses. To me, the only thing worse than Gerrit is the email/bz patch
> submission workflow we used prior to Pagure. Gerrit would be a step up
> from that legacy workflow, but it pushes too much crap onto the
> contributor that it's a great way to demotivate people.
>
> Having contributed to projects using Gerrit, and previously dealt with
> Gerrit based workflows, I can honestly say that Gerrit is absolutely a
> miserable experience and the OpenStack project should feel bad about
> the fact that they think Gerrit provides a good user experience.
> What's worse is that the stupid bot that they use on GitHub mirrors is
> completely unfriendly to drive-by contributors. The OpenStack Project
> is an example of how to make it fundamentally driven by corporate
> developers who force asinine workflows because they can't be bothered
> to make a proper community full of a mixture of hobbyists and
> corporate contributors. And don't get me started on the fact that
> there are no distributions of OpenStack on community Linux
> distributions anymore, which I further indicate as evidence that the
> OpenStack community is too insular for its own good. RDO does not
> count since it doesn't work on *real* community distributions like
> Fedora.

While I don't necessarily agree with the tone,

I must agree the the Gerrit
experience for drive by contributors is one of the most horrible ones I had.

I even think sending patches over e-mail is probably better.


> The main reason I haven't pursued it is because CentOS CI is so
> unreliable and awful. It's demoralizing getting failures and then
> looking at Jenkins and seeing there are no logs of the failure. Or the
> increasing number of "error" states where it just breaks...

This has been reported a year ago, without a fix so far:

During running tests, it's very hard to see what's happening
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/2

CI errors are undecipherable
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/43

CI errors happen far to often
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/44


I've been trying to make those issues a priority when we adapted gating, but I
was outvoted at FESCo.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org