[fab] project hosting?

[Rahul Sundaram]

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 09:46 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
> > In Fedora, if the choice is between proprietary infrastructure and
> > nothing, we can very well choose nothing. There is nothing silly about
> > sticking to the ideals of the project.
> 
> The open-source "ideal" of the project, as far as I see it, applies only
> to what is included-in/released-by Fedora (Core/Extras) (*).  I agree it
> certainly is appealing to be able to apply this same ideal to the
> project entirely (ie, including internal project infrastructure), but my
> opinion is that in this case, the cost is just too high.
> 
> I had thought that it was a given that the fedora project absolutely
> *needed* project hosting.  We have to weigh this need (and possibly not
> satisfying it with an open-source solution) against the cost of
> upholding your theoretical ideal.

It is far from clear to me why Fedora needs to provide its own
infrastructure for itself rather than just use something like Savannah.


> 
> Now don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that we should use sourceforge.
>  I'm saying that I think it is too early to say that we should not.
> 
> -- Rex
> 
> (*) After a quick scan of both fedora.redhat.com and fedoraproject.org,
> I couldn't find any definition of Fedora's ideals/goals (I'm sure it's
> there somewhere).  I'll be perfectly happy to shut up if a definitive
> definition of Fedora and it's goals/ideals exists, that says these
> ideals apply to Fedora infrastructure as well.

That is what we are trying to define here I believe. You think the
ideals of providing a Free and open source system doesnt apply to its
infrastructure. I think it absolutely does. When we reach consensus we
can write it down somewhere and call it definitive. 

Rahul