4:13 p.m.
Hi Infrastructure team,
Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start
here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on
requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some
potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results,
and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if
we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to
the community.
Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further
automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
8:22 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:13 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Hi Infrastructure team,
Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start
here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on
requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some
potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results,
and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if
we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to
the community.
Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further
automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
sanity checking is applied.
if someone needs hosting RIGHT NOW, then they can use their fedorapeople
account for the hour or two it'll take for someone from fedora
infrastructure to get to it.
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
-sv
9:43 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:22:03PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:13 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Hi Infrastructure team,
>
> Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start
> here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on
> requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some
> potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results,
> and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if
> we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to
> the community.
>
> Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further
> automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
sanity checking is applied.
if someone needs hosting RIGHT NOW, then they can use their fedorapeople
account for the hour or two it'll take for someone from fedora
infrastructure to get to it.
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
I agree with this statement -- I'd rather have people manually checking
requests as they come rather than manually checking each automated
request and possibly going through a revocation process if any abuse
were to arise.
--
Ian Weller <ianweller(a)gmail.com> http://ianweller.org
GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet."
~ Douglas Adams
3:26 a.m.
seth vidal wrote:
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a
little
sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project
hosting sites.
Rahul
7:09 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:43:47PM -0600, Ian Weller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:22:03PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:13 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > Hi Infrastructure team,
> >
> > Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start
> > here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on
> > requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some
> > potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results,
> > and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if
> > we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to
> > the community.
> >
> > Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further
> > automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
>
> imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
> sanity checking is applied.
>
> if someone needs hosting RIGHT NOW, then they can use their fedorapeople
> account for the hour or two it'll take for someone from fedora
> infrastructure to get to it.
>
> Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
>
I agree with this statement -- I'd rather have people manually checking
requests as they come rather than manually checking each automated
request and possibly going through a revocation process if any abuse
were to arise.
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the
location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o
until their Hosted project appears?
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
7:19 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
> imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
> sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Can't we automate manual checking? Do you understand that the word
'manual' is opposite to the word 'automate'?
If you automate it then it is no longer manual.
If it is manual, then it is not automatic.
> Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to
abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project
hosting sites.
If by 'it' you mean "have a giant pile of unmaintained pkgs that no one
is updating or caring for and are just wasting space", then yes,
repo.or.cz does that very well.
-sv
7:23 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the
location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o
until their Hosted project appears?
All the info about the things you can do on fedorapeople is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org
Paul: Is there a specific case where someone was outraged by having to
wait to get a fedorahosted project and stormed off to google code
instead? And, frankly, do we care? Is our goal to get angry, impatient
developers to host their code at fedorahosted?
-sv
7:37 a.m.
seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
>
>> imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
>> sanity checking is applied.
> Can that be automated?
Can't we automate manual checking? Do you understand that the word
'manual' is opposite to the word 'automate'?
If you automate it then it is no longer manual.
If it is manual, then it is not automatic.
Oh, come on. No need to play super smart. Isn't it obvious? I meant, can
the sanity checking be automated?
If by 'it' you mean "have a giant pile of unmaintained
pkgs that no one
is updating or caring for and are just wasting space", then yes,
repo.or.cz does that very well.
Lots of people are taking advantage of it precisely because it is
trivial to sign up. Yes, that means some of the projects will be
abandoned but look at the number of projects in fedorahosted.org which
haven't even bothered to edit the front page and provide a simple
description of what it is all about. I don't think we are doing anything
that is obviously better.
Rahul
7:42 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Oh, come on. No need to play super smart. Isn't it obvious? I
meant, can
the sanity checking be automated?
Part of the sanity checking is looking at what's requested itself.
> If by 'it' you mean "have a giant pile of
unmaintained pkgs that no one
> is updating or caring for and are just wasting space", then yes,
> repo.or.cz does that very well.
Lots of people are taking advantage of it precisely because it is
trivial to sign up. Yes, that means some of the projects will be
abandoned but look at the number of projects in fedorahosted.org which
haven't even bothered to edit the front page and provide a simple
description of what it is all about. I don't think we are doing anything
that is obviously better.
And do you think the quality of the projects at fedorahosted is going
to get better or get worse if we make it happen automatically?
I think it will decline.
-sv
7:49 a.m.
seth vidal wrote:
Part of the sanity checking is looking at what's requested
itself.
What do you look for?
And do you think the quality of the projects at fedorahosted is
going
to get better or get worse if we make it happen automatically?
I think it will decline.
Perhaps it will but maybe it will be offset by more people taking
advantage of it. A thriving community can afford to have a few less
active members. It is a potential trade off to consider.
Rahul
9:42 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:23:00AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the
> location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o
> until their Hosted project appears?
>
All the info about the things you can do on fedorapeople is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org
Paul: Is there a specific case where someone was outraged by having to
wait to get a fedorahosted project and stormed off to google code
instead? And, frankly, do we care? Is our goal to get angry, impatient
developers to host their code at fedorahosted?
Outraged, not that I'm aware of. That shouldn't stop us from seeing
if there are specific improvements we can make that lower contributor
barriers. Our goal is not to encourage angry, impatient developers,
but simply to make sure that we make things as easy as sanity allows
for everyone to work with our project.
I'll take on the role of $RANDOM_NONANGRY_DEVELOPER to demonstrate. I
hear about Fedora Hosted from a marketing related activity like an
article on the web or word of mouth from a friend or a list post. I
google it and arrive at the top link, http://fedorahosted.org.
Neither the FAQ nor the New Project instructions tell me that I have
an alternative available, the fedorapeople.org route. A wiki search
for 'git repo' or 'git repository' doesn't tell me either.
Wouldn't just adding a FAQ entry be an easy way to give people more
information without requiring them to scour the wiki?
Patch attached as a suggestion.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
10:57 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram
<sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
> Part of the sanity checking is looking at what's requested itself.
What do you look for?
Things that would probably be looked for:
Easy to automatically sanity check
Fedora Sucks project
Fedora Eats Donkey Dicks project
Hard to sanity check automatically check
Upload of the cisco source code from pirate bay saying it is a Public
Domain project.
Upload of the entire Millie Vanili ogg archive under the same license.
Fedora Unity and Cooperation KDE- Gnome might raise some eyebrows but
would not be easy to auto-sanity-check.
> And do you think the quality of the projects at fedorahosted is
going
> to get better or get worse if we make it happen automatically?
>
> I think it will decline.
Perhaps it will but maybe it will be offset by more people taking advantage
of it. A thriving community can afford to have a few less active members. It
is a potential trade off to consider.
A thriving community also requires the resources to maintain it. Are
we positioning ourselves as a new SourceForge? Do we have the
resources to make it not suck because everyone and their brother have
uploaded their 3 line patch to the kernel as a new git tree? Having
seen what happens when Red Hat is not ready to add disk/cpu/bandwidth
as much as people want it.. its better to be picky and up than popular
and down. Those who forget sourceware.org are prone to repeat it.
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
11:30 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the
location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o
until their Hosted project appears?
Are we then going to require new hostees to have access to
fedorapeople.org? Because I don't think that will really help either
them or us.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com>
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
11:33 a.m.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Fedora Unity and Cooperation KDE- Gnome might raise some eyebrows
but
would not be easy to auto-sanity-check.
/me raises one or two eyebrows...
I see we're being used as an example but I'm not sure I understand what
you're saying ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
11:44 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:30 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the
> location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o
> until their Hosted project appears?
Are we then going to require new hostees to have access to
fedorapeople.org? Because I don't think that will really help either
them or us.
require? no - but it tells them if they have a fedorapeople account that
they can set up a git repo there, instead, if they so wish.
-sv
12:08 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
> imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
> sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
> Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project
hosting sites.
Can you list which ones? google code might be automated (The docs make
it look like fill out web form, instantly have hosting) but Sourceforge,
gna, and berlios have a manual review.
-Toshio
3:20 p.m.
I can confirm that google-code is automated. I have one project hosted
there.
do you think a "happy medium" would work?
set it up for "instant access" to "owner" but review by Fedora
Infrastructure is required
before read only and/or read write repositories are opened?
Mike.
2009/1/27 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com>
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
>
>> imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little
>> sanity checking is applied.
>
> Can that be automated?
>
>> Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
>
> http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project
> hosting sites.
>
Can you list which ones? google code might be automated (The docs make
it look like fill out web form, instantly have hosting) but Sourceforge,
gna, and berlios have a manual review.
-Toshio
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
3:29 p.m.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Mike wrote:
I can confirm that google-code is automated. I have one project
hosted there.
do you think a "happy medium" would work?
set it up for "instant access" to "owner" but review by Fedora
Infrastructure is required
before read only and/or read write repositories are opened?
I think it's time to chime in on this. I'm generally 100% for self
service but in this case I like the way we have it now. Especially until
a reaping policy can be put in place that people won't flip their lids
about.
As far as I'm concerned, Fedora Hosted is not a place for fly by night
vaporware and I think having this manual process prevents it a bit.
Having to create a ticket, having to respond when we ask questions, etc,
shows they have at least the commitment to create the project and wait for
it. Does it have its downsides? Yes, you have to wait a little bit.
But this is supposed to be a high quality hosting setup, the cost is a bit
of time.
Additionally I like the personal touch of having to interact with someone
to actually get this done. To me it feels more like a partnership, there
actually is someone on the other end of this stuff, its not just some
large souless machine. If they've got problems they know exactly where to
go.
-1 from me unless someone can give me a clear benefit from the views of
Fedora, (and no, making stuff up doesn't count, do research, draw a
conclusion, send your proposition to the list)
-Mike
4:44 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen
<kanarip(a)kanarip.com> wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> Fedora Unity and Cooperation KDE- Gnome might raise some eyebrows but
> would not be easy to auto-sanity-check.
>
/me raises one or two eyebrows...
I see we're being used as an example but I'm not sure I understand what
you're saying ;-)
The acronym for the project could be F. U. C. K. Gnome. I was trying
to remember various project names that have gotten past auto-testers
and then come up as a problem (Getting a username of first letter
firstname, last name... with the name given as Frederick Uckyou (where
you was replaced with various things.)
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
5:28 p.m.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:29 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Mike wrote:
> I can confirm that google-code is automated. I have one project hosted there.
>
> do you think a "happy medium" would work?
> set it up for "instant access" to "owner" but review by Fedora
Infrastructure is required
> before read only and/or read write repositories are opened?
>
I think it's time to chime in on this. I'm generally 100% for self
service but in this case I like the way we have it now. Especially until
a reaping policy can be put in place that people won't flip their lids
about.
As far as I'm concerned, Fedora Hosted is not a place for fly by night
vaporware and I think having this manual process prevents it a bit.
Having to create a ticket, having to respond when we ask questions, etc,
shows they have at least the commitment to create the project and wait for
it. Does it have its downsides? Yes, you have to wait a little bit.
But this is supposed to be a high quality hosting setup, the cost is a bit
of time.
Additionally I like the personal touch of having to interact with someone
to actually get this done. To me it feels more like a partnership, there
actually is someone on the other end of this stuff, its not just some
large souless machine. If they've got problems they know exactly where to
go.
-1 from me unless someone can give me a clear benefit from the views of
Fedora, (and no, making stuff up doesn't count, do research, draw a
conclusion, send your proposition to the list)
-Mike
As one of the initial creators of the Fedora Hosted offerings, I have to
agree with Mike McGrath here.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
5565
days inactive
5566
days old
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
19 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Ian Weller -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Jesse Keating -
Mike -
Mike McGrath -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Seth Vidal -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Toshio Kuratomi