----- Original Message -----
From: "Till Maas" <opensource(a)till.name>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 1:39:49 PM
Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:35:28AM -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Miro HronĨok" <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
> > To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 8:28:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
> >
> > On 06. 04. 20 14:19, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > > That part isn't actually clear to me. There's certainly a vocal
portion
> > > against using GitLab
> >
> > I think it's hard to see who's vocal against GitLab and who just wants
a
> > truly
> > open decision process for this.
> >
> > I've heard people who would love to get GitLab, but who are genuinely sad
> > about how CPE management handled this.
>
> Sure, can we have two positions in this voting system?
>
> 1. I want GitLab,
> 2. I want Pagure,
> 3. I want something not listed here,
> 4. I don't particularly care.
What do you want to do with this information?
I'm not in CPE.
I'm curious what the _community's_ position is. There's a small portion of
people responding to this thread. We can make assumptions about what the
Fedora community thinks (and certainly we know what individuals of it think),
but until we have data, do we really know what the majority opinion is?
I value data over a few loud voices. :)
Also I do not think it is
a good idea to micro-manager CPE into a specific solution. IMHO it is
more important to get the dist-git features that Fedora requested and
probably also issue trackers for Fedora groups (for example Council,
FESCo, ...) currently implemented in
pagure.io), GIT repos with a git forge for Fedora (for example for docs,
infra, releng). And it would be great to also ensure that Fedora
contributors/Fedora Infra/CPE can contribute to these solutions to
ensure that Fedora specific requirements can be met.
As I said elsewhere, I don't want to use this for a decision. I just
want to see what more than the ~60 people responding here and in the
other thread actually think about this issue.
I do agree, if this were a vote, it would boxes CPE in. But before the
Fedora community can engage with CPE, shouldn't the leadership (and those
of us arguing on the thread) understand what the rest of the Fedora
community thinks, such that we all can represent something cohesively to
CPE?
IMO, that was the step lacking from this process on the Fedora side.
If it is easier to customize Gitlab to meet Fedora's dist-git
requirements than to customize pagure, then it would be good for CPE
to do this even if more people would like to prefer pagure. If it is the
other way, then it could still make sense to use Gitlab for tasks used
by pagure.io to benefit from better Gitforge features, there, but keep
pagure for dist-git.
Also, I do not have any idea how easy it is to get changes into Gitlab,
so this is also something that needs to be taken into consideration.
I find it somewhat troublesome that these questions are not answered,
especially since the migration from pkgdb to pagure was very painful and
is not yet completed.
Thanks for your opinion, your response has been recorded in this informal
poll. :)
Kind regards
Till
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)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