Fedora Developer Portal - UX point of view
by Petr Hracek
Hi Mairin,
sorry for bother you with this item but I would like to ask
you If you can thing about how Fedora Developer Portal could look like.
I propose that skin or face for developer.fp.org can be used also for
another portals
which could be defined later on.
Or even if they are already exists.
I guess that fedoraproject.org should have a common face:)
We would like to release a first version of Fedora Developer Portal in
the middle of September
but many folks could have holidays and I guess that you too.:)
We already have a GitHub repo for mockups [1] and feel free to use it.
I would like to really thank you for your time and support.
[1] https://github.com/developer-portal/mockups
Greetings
Petr
--
Petr Hracek
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Red Hat, Inc
Mob: +420777056169
email: phracek(a)redhat.com
8 years, 7 months
Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-07-30)
by Václav Pavlín
==============================================
#fedora-meeting-2: Env and Stacks (2015-07-30)
==============================================
Meeting started by vpavlin at 12:00:10 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-07-30/env-and-stac...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (vpavlin, 12:02:07)
* Fedora Developer Portal (vpavlin, 12:06:19)
* LINK: https://developer-phracek.rhcloud.com/ (vpavlin, 12:06:38)
* IDEA: order content on the portal from popularity perspective
(vpavlin, 12:10:20)
* mizmo asked to create a draft of UI (vpavlin, 12:12:08)
* LINK: https://github.com/developer-portal/content/issues/33
(vpavlin, 12:12:43)
* ACTION: langdon to ask mikeG if he would be able to help with
content (vpavlin, 12:15:54)
* IDEA: langdon: have a section owner who is the editor.. then they
can check the student content (vpavlin, 12:23:54)
* open floor (vpavlin, 12:26:56)
Meeting ended at 12:28:41 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* langdon to ask mikeG if he would be able to help with content
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* langdon
* langdon to ask mikeG if he would be able to help with content
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* vpavlin (40)
* phracek (20)
* langdon (15)
* bkabrda (13)
* phracek_ (9)
* ttomecek (6)
* zodbot (5)
* hhorak (0)
* juhp (0)
* ncoghlan (0)
* jkaluza (0)
* walters (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
Architect - Senior Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic
Phone: +420 739 666 824
8 years, 9 months
Issues for next meeting 2015-07-30
by Petr Hracek
I would like to ask you if we can discuss this topics on meeting:
- RHEL.next and how communicate between containers / stacks.
- Rings in Fedora 24 - documentation would be awesome
Fedora Developer Portal can be an issue on OpenFloor.
--
Petr Hracek
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Red Hat, Inc
Mob: +420777056169
email: phracek(a)redhat.com
8 years, 9 months
Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept
by Adam Samalik
Hi everyone,
I updated the prototype and tried apply your feedback: https://developer-phracek.rhcloud.com/
I removed everything "random" from the home page and changed it - so it better explains the purpose of the portal. The previous version was more about previewing the technology and structure in the main menu. The homepage itself wasn't that important - sorry again for not making this clear in advance.
We should be now able to use the prototype to:
- preview the content from our content repo [1] (it's better than reading markdown)
- decide whether this structure is acceptable (and probably change it a lot)
- and basically have something running
What it's not in the prototype:
- section with docker images and vagrant boxes to download
- section with blogs and updates
What I would like to do next? Ideally, if you find some time, I would like to have a session with you, people interested in this project, to discuss the content, structure and basically everything related to this. For example, I really like how the Fedora Hubs project [2] is going. If we could do something similar, even when the Fedora Developer Portal is not that big, it would be really nice.
If you don't know what this is all about, please visit our project wiki [3] or ask me any question.
Adam
[1] https://github.com/developer-portal/content
[2] http://blog.linuxgrrl.com/2015/07/01/fedora-hubs-update/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Developer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Petr Hracek" <phracek(a)redhat.com>
To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, 22 July, 2015 3:24:11 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept
On 07/21/2015 04:00 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jonathan Wakely < jwakely(a)redhat.com > wrote:
On 21/07/15 15:45 +0200, Petr Hracek wrote:
Feel free to send us any comment or improvements. We would like to improve Fedora for developers.
Just contents are missing.
Under "The latest stable runtimes and frameworks Packaged in Fedora
and ready to use!" would it be worth mentioning C and C++?
GCC 5 is the first compiler to default to the latest C11 standard, and we ship more of the latest C++ standard library extensions than any
other compiler.
There's a lot happening in that space, and not everyone gets excited
by shiny dynamic languages ;-)
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Personally, I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrasing "Fedora is made for developers". It implies that we don't do anything to make it great for non-developers, which is not true at all. Is there a better way we can word this?
As I mentioned in the first mail. This is proof of concept and will be definitely changed.
UX team could look at it and let us know whether is fullfield with fedoraproject UX layouts.
Other pages which could be developed later on could have the same faces so that
all pages looks the same.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
Petr Hracek
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Red Hat, Inc
Mob: +420777056169
email: phracek(a)redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
8 years, 9 months
Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-07-16)
by Václav Pavlín
==============================================
#fedora-meeting-2: Env and Stacks (2015-07-16)
==============================================
Meeting started by vpavlin at 12:11:50 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-07-16/env-and-stac...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (vpavlin, 12:12:38)
* "Developer oriented overview of available deployment tech" (interim
name) (vpavlin, 12:15:32)
* a documentation project to describe various deployment technologies
(Nulecule, xdg-apps, "something" for software collections)
(vpavlin, 12:17:31)
* matrix of which technology should be used for what *kind* of
(Fedora) app (vpavlin, 12:19:04)
* a nice little flowchart of 1) identify app type 2) identify pkg type
3) pkg 4) deploy to copr 4a) publicize 5) how to promote to
playground (vpavlin, 12:21:46)
* Would be great content for developer.fedoraproject.org (vpavlin,
12:24:07)
* LINK: https://github.com/developer-portal/content (phracek,
12:24:34)
* developer.fedoraproject.org to have first version up till the end of
July (vpavlin, 12:30:06)
* first pass could be a simple 2 column table, later maybe something
like https://www.drupal.org/start (vpavlin, 12:32:26)
* Developer Site for Fedora Project (vpavlin, 12:41:12)
* Project started by phracek and jstribny -
https://github.com/developer-portal/content (vpavlin, 12:41:42)
* Added to Tasklist -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Tasklist#Tasklist
(vpavlin, 12:42:03)
* First version to be up till the end of July (vpavlin, 12:42:21)
* Should be accessible through developer.fp.org, developers.fp.org,
dev.fp.org (vpavlin, 12:42:48)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Projects/DeveloperPortal
(vpavlin, 12:43:10)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Developer (phracek,
12:43:43)
* mizmo was contacted about Fedora Developer Portal (vpavlin,
12:50:57)
* developer.fedoraproject.org to be announced with F23, tied to F24
(vpavlin, 12:59:05)
* juhp_ to bring this topic up on Workstation WG meeting (vpavlin,
12:59:42)
* we should do a self-contained change for Developer Portal to get a
FESCo's sign-off on the idea (vpavlin, 13:00:53)
* open floor (vpavlin, 13:01:27)
Meeting ended at 13:03:09 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* vpavlin (56)
* phracek (52)
* ncoghlan (44)
* langdon (14)
* juhp_ (8)
* Corey84 (8)
* ttomecek (5)
* zodbot (5)
* langdon_ (2)
* langdon__ (1)
* bkabrda (0)
* hhorak (0)
* juhp (0)
* jkaluza (0)
* walters (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
Architect - Senior Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic
Phone: +420 739 666 824
8 years, 9 months
Fedora developer portal - proof of concept
by Petr Hracek
Hi Fedora devels and other folks,
Adam Samalik and me we create a first proof of concept Fedora Developer
Portal.
Testing instance is already available here [1].
*
**Fedora Developer Portal* is a new place for developers and not only
for them, providing information about tools, projects, technologies
and other features that are packaged in Fedora.
This page would be mainly used for developers building on Fedora and
help them with tools.
But of course other users can use main technologies developed on Fedora.
It is plan to have reference to this portal from [2].
What is possible structure of Fedora Developer Portal is on [3] page
under section *'Structure'.
*If anyone is interested with helping us to create this portal please
clone repository [4]
and provide any contents.
We will review it together with other colleagues and add it to this Page.
UX design is going to be discussed and reviewed by Mairin. Thanks for
your help.
Some discussion about this portal is on Env&Stack mailing list.
What Fedora developer portal should cover at all is here [3] and can be
extended of course.
GitHub repository for content is [4].
GitHub repository for website is [5].
Feel free to send us any comment or improvements. We would like to
improve Fedora for developers.
Just contents are missing.
[1] https://developer-phracek.rhcloud.com/
[2] https://getfedora.org/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Developer
[4] https://github.com/developer-portal/content
[5] https://github.com/developer-portal/website
--
Petr Hracek
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Red Hat, Inc
Mob: +420777056169
email: phracek(a)redhat.com
8 years, 9 months
E&S WG request for input on requirements for Fedora Developer Portal
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
Hi,
In the last Env & Stacks meeting last week there was discussion about
plans, direction, and content for the Fedora Developer Portal website
that is under construction. I think the plan is make the E&S WG more
actively involved in overseeing the content on the Portal. Anyway as part
of the discussion it was suggested by Langdon that it would be good to
reach out to the WS WG for input on its requirements and suggestions
for the Developer Portal since one of the main targets of Fedora WS is
developers. Since I am on both WGs I offered to liase on this topic.
What kind of content, requirements or suggestions does the WS WG have
for the Developer Portal?
References:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Developer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Projects/DeveloperPortal
Thanks, Jens
ps I planned to bring this up before the WS WG meeting today
but I got back late so posting it here now: not sure there would
have been time to discuss it in the irc meeting anyway...
8 years, 9 months
Developer subsite as a self-contained change proposal (was Re: Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-07-16))
by Nick Coghlan
On 16 July 2015 at 23:09, Václav Pavlín <vpavlin(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> * Developer Site for Fedora Project (vpavlin, 12:41:12)
> * LINK:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Projects/DeveloperPortal
> (vpavlin, 12:43:10)
> * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Developer (phracek,
> 12:43:43)
In relation to this, I've updated the content on the new Env & Stacks
subpage to eliminate the duplication with phracek's existing plan for
setting up the initial site and instead specifically cover the idea of
putting the subsite forward as Fedora level self-contained change
proposal.
Where I think Env & Stacks can potentially help the project is in
having the WG take overall responsibility for the site's content,
including coordinating with the other WGs if they're making major
changes to the recommendations.
We'd also be the first point of escalation if there's an argument
about what tools the developer portal should be recommending.
Where I think getting directly involved in this particular project
will help Envs & Stacks is that "we're responsible for the Fedora
Developer Portal" conveys the essential purpose of the group in a
practical way, both for folks participating in the WG, and those
outside it wondering why we're here :)
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
8 years, 9 months
Starting to take a look at Conary
by Nick Coghlan
At Matt Miller's recommendation, I added Conary to the list of
packaging tools I'm investigating as a possible language independent
user level package management system:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Projects/UserLevelPackageMa...
(Sam Kottler actually suggested Conary to me at Flock a couple of
years ago, but I never got around to investigating it)
In trying to research that, I was having a lot of trouble finding
useful docs, so I filed an issue about that on their GitHub issue
tracker: https://github.com/sassoftware/conary/issues/2
Near term, they pointed out the clone of their old wiki from the rPath
days: https://opensource.sas.com/conarywiki/index.php/Main_Page
Longer term, they've started putting updated docs together at
http://sassoftware.github.io/conary/ (very bare bones at the moment,
but I suggested they look at MediaWiki export + Pandoc to convert some
of the old docs from the wiki clone).
They also mentioned that they've finally been able to fully open
source rBuilder itself, and pointed out
http://sassoftware.github.io/appengine/quickstart.html for folks that
would like to try out conary, rmake and rbuild in a prebuilt VM.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
8 years, 9 months
Two phase candidate package review (was Re: Council Engineering update)
by Nick Coghlan
On 13 July 2015 at 17:49, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:54:21PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On 10 July 2015 at 16:24, Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> > * shortly summarize plans for upcoming Fedora releases (F23/F24) in their
>> > fields of interests and send it to working group ML or update in [2]
>>
>> For me, I'm hoping to work with the Fresque developers
>> (https://github.com/fedora-infra/fresque/issues/9) to get the main
>> package review workflow out of Bugzilla, with a view to then following
>> up on the idea of splitting the package review process into a
>> preliminary redistribution review (which can be handled by any Fedora
>> Contributor and amounts to "good enough for custom development work"),
>> and a packaging policy compliance review (which would match the
>> current review process and amounts to "good enough to consider for
>> operational deployment without in-house developer support").
>
> The first review being something along the line of: Good for copr (playground?)
> and the later along the line of: Good for the main repo ?
Roughly speaking, yeah.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Projects/PackageReviewProce...
goes into detail on my current thinking.
Nothing much changes in Aleph 0->2 - those are basically "Fedora as it
exists today", and I'd expect the Base and Edition WGs and the
individual language SIGs to define the specific policies for those.
The key new concept is the idea of a more explicit "redistribution
review" that just checks:
* that the component complies with Fedora's licensing policies
* that the component appears to have been published in good faith
* that the component appears to be benign
Unlike the main packaging review (which focuses on the software
itself), this would focus more on reviewing how the software was
created, and whether or not redistributing it might present a risk to
either the Fedora project or Fedora's users.
At the moment, that step is effectively part of creating and
publishing COPR repos, my idea would be to split it out even further
so you could do that level of review without creating an RPM at all.
However, adding that step into the *current* package review process
would be difficult, as there'd be a lot of education work to be done
in changing the way folks use Bugzilla. With a separate review server,
it becomes much easier to split the review process into two steps, and
allow a package under review to sit at the second review stage
indefinitely.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
8 years, 9 months