Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> writes:
Michal Konecny <mkonecny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>>> Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> cough cough errata cough cough
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, sometimes the disconnect between what is going on in
>>>>> Fedora and internally in Red Hat is intriguing.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of sharing code on one hand, but on the other hand
>>>> it is pretty oriented towards workflows that are designed for a
>>>> product release cycle. Bodhi is designed around community feedback
>>>> (and now CI feedback).
>>>>
>>>> It could be interesting to hold a chat with the Errata tool
>>>> developers to see if there is interest in sharing tooling, but it
>>>> may be a lot of effort to make Errata tool flexible enough to
>>>> support two pretty different workflows. I'd be willing to have
>>>> that conversation; I could be wrong.
>>
>> Of course, there is a lot of business logic specific to Red Hat
>> projects backed into Errata, but ultimately, it does not help to
>> anybody if Fedora release process is using different tools then Red
>> Hat internally. What Red Hat does internally should be just
>> extension to what Fedora does. The processes used internally should
>> be proven in Fedora first.
>
> This is a very nice vision that will potentially make life of Red Hat
> and Fedora much easier. I'm not that long in the Fedora project to
> know, why Fedora and Red Hat internal tools are that different, but
> this idea doesn't sound that bad. Few questions first: Are those
> internal tools open source? Could we as Fedora community use them?
> Is there any legal issue? Is this tool in good shape?
>
> And talking about the git forge, what is Red Hat using internally as
> git forge? And then the above questions applies.
It was mentioned in a different part of this thread that Red Hat is
using pagure internally.
Using, not standardized on. It depends on the team.
Thanks,
--Robbie