On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for
> things that don't really seems critical to the Fedora Project, for example
> do we really need a custom calendar application ? or election application
> ? It seems that every time we have a problem the solution is let's write
> something to solve that problem, instead of trying to find a compromise
> and reuse existing solutions.
Could please stop this?
The continuous theme of "we're building things because we like it" is unfair to
all the people who have been involved in the infrastructure at some point in the
past.
It is assuming that there was no reasons, that they did not do their research,
that they didn't think it through.
The requirements for applications 3 years ago were vastly different from what
they are today.
If you don't know the historical reasons for an app, there are a number of
people around who can answer them, but please let's stop assuming things which
are at the end of the day insulting and demotivating for the people who were
involved then and are still now.
This goes for fedocal, for pagure, for anitya. I've seen this question come up
often enough (here and elsewhere): "Why aren't we using libraries.io instead of
anytia?"
Well, the simple reason is: because libraries.io *did* *not* *exist* when anitya
was created. So maybe we are not the bad ones that didn't do their research.
I am not saying that we can't re-evaluate these decision and see if they still
make sense, but please, please, can we stop assuming the worst?
I apologize if that came down that way but this is exactly what I was trying to say at the end of my email (see below since it was cut here) . I am 100% sure that decision taken in the past were the best decision at that time and I am honestly not in position to judge or to say anything about it.
"
Finally, I would like to make clear that I am not blaming anyone, and
that decisions made in the past, I am sure were taken with the best
intentions. But I think it is also important to recognize that it is
legitimate to question these decisions today as something that made
sense 10 years ago or 5 years ago might not make sense in today's
context.
"
> Now when the CPE team goes and ask for more people because we struggle
> with current situation, I can only guess that these non critical
> applications are mentioned. If I was putting my own money to sponsor a
> team to help building a Linux distribution I would be asking why do we
> have to develop a calendar application or why do we need a custom git
> forge.
Here as well, what you believe CPE is meant to be is immensely different than
what the Fedora Infrastructure (Fedora Engineering) team was just a few years
ago.
So asking these questions and taking this angle may make sense with the new
vision but you would have a much different picture if you were looking at them
from the old vision, or the one before that, or the next one.
Let's be aware that Fedora Infra's job hasn't been "Building a linux distro"
since it's inception, for a long time its goal was much closer to "building and
supporting the *community* that builds the linux distro".
If you use this mission statement, you can a much different look at badges,
elections or calendaring.
Yeah again agree with that, and I think this is what I was trying to say by mentioning that we should look at these with today's context in mind. Again sorry if I failed to express that point clearly.
Piere
_______________________________________________
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