Fedora hosted planning

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:17:41PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:30:26 -0700
> Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 3 March 2015 at 13:22, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Greetings.
> > >
> > > So, looking at fedorahosted, I thought I would start some discussion
> > > about where we are and where we need to go short and longer term.
> > >
> > > Right now hosted03/04 are rhel6 and still in puppet. Short term, I
> > > would very much like to move them to ansible, and ideally to rhel7.
> > >
> > > I looked into the trac situation upstream. We are currently using
> > > 0.12.5 long term release on rhel6 (from epel6). There's a 0.12.6
> > > thats out, but it looks like that might be the last release in the
> > > 0.12 series (or there might be a 0.12.7, but thats likely to be
> > > it). They are looking at doing releases yearly if they can manage,
> > > so 1.2 would appear later this year, then 1.3, etc. It's not clear
> > > how long 1.0 will be supported really. At least a year, but not
> > > clear after that.
> > >
> > > So, as I see it, our options are:
> > >
> > > 1 Just move to ansible, leave on rhel6 for now until we decide
> > >   something better.
> > >
> > > 2 Move to ansible and rhel7, and build out trac-1.0 and plugins in
> > >   epel7. This will take a bit longer since there's so many plugins,
> > > but shouldn't really be that hard.
> > >
> > > 3 Move to ansible and rhel7 and progit. I'm not sure if progit is
> > > ready to replace trac though. I think it might need wiki features
> > > and also more ticket handling stuff, since some of our projects use
> > > trac ticketing heavily.
> > >
> > > 4 a combo of 2 and 3 (ie, offer trac and progit both)
> > >
> > > 5. a combo of 1 and 3 (ie, old trac projects stay on old hosted, we
> > > move ones that want to progit, eventually we have a flag day and
> > > move the rest).
> > >
> > >
> > 5 sounds like the most likely. There are a lot of work flows which
> > groups are using with the current trac. If they didn't.. they would
> > have probably moved over to github by now. Having the old boxes on
> > ansible is probably faster by at least 18 months over getting people
> > moved to the newer system.
> 
> I refuse to use github because I personally think its very bad for us as
> a open and transparent community and project that prides itself on
> making sure everyone can mimic what we do exactly to use something
> closed and proprietary. For my own projects I think I would mostly be
> okay with progit though something would be needed for ticketing for
> releng, wiki space would be good for some projects but is not really
> needed on all projects. some like mash only have a git repo on
> fedorahosted, there is no associated trac. I think 4 or 5 would both be
> viable.

[Sorry for catching up late to this thread.]

I'm not comfortable yet with the idea of taking on the service
build-out that (3) represents above.  That's a lot of commitment for
something I don't think we can call critical path.  Github may be a
closed/paid service solution but it doesn't affect the public
availability, transparency or forkability of any of our code.  And a
long-term investment in chasing that solution as a Fedora-specific
service to replace hosted is not necessarily the best use of our
resources.


-- 
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/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com