There's a post on the Community Blog:
and a thread on devel@:
explaining that CPE is considering 'the future of a git forge solution
which will be run by the CPE team on behalf of the Fedora Community',
i.e. possibly ditching Pagure. The named contenders so far are Pagure,
Gitlab and Github.
The devel@ thread is going to be the usual tire fire, but I think we
should write up something on this and send it to the Council (who are
supposed to represent the interests of Fedora 'communities' in this
process). Obviously we use Pagure for project hosting, issue tracking,
and we're also working on the new async blockerbugs process, which
relies on integration with Pagure.
Can folks (especially those working on the blockerbugs stuff) read
through the posts and think about what requirements we have here? I
don't think it's going to be useful to have a big argument about the
specific contenders here (see devel@ for that!) but it would be good to
write up what QA actually needs in a forge. I'll try and gather the
feedback and organize it into something to send to Council.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
I am surprised by the number of errors for PowerPC on openqa stg since
Is there some pending changes on those machines ?
We do not have such errors in our local openqa server at IBM for same