RFC: rel-eng tooling development workflow

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday, April 24, 2015 10:20:09 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:54:34 -0500
> Adam Miller <maxamillion at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
> ...snip workflow...
> 
> I personally don't care much. I can adjust to whatever work flow people
> doing the most work wish.
> 
> I want everything we do to be opensource and possible for others to
> reuse.
To me this is a hard requirement down to code hosting.

> > With that second note in mind, there are a decent handful of open
> > source solutions for this and of those there are two "front runners"
> > in my mind for our use since they are written in python and the Fedora
> > team at large has plenty of experience developing and
> > hosting/deploying/administering software written in python. They are:
> > 
> > - pagure (http://pagure.dev.fedoraproject.org/)
> > 
> >     This has been written by Fedora's very own pingou and it satisfies
> > 
> > all immediate requirements that I know of (including FAS account
> > integration) and would offer the ability for us to fine-tune it for
> > our needs since it's effectively been developed "in house" but we
> > could also work to make it more popular in the broader community so
> > see if others would like to join and help add even more features to
> > it.
> 
> This would be my choice of course. ;)
> 
> However, it might be a trial period would be worth doing... some X
> weeks of work and if things aren't working well enough or can't be made
> to, revisit later? My main worry is that it's just not that mature yet
> and there's a lot of work to be done yet. ;) It still could end up
> being great however. Especially for simple needs (which I think releng
> has).

Honestly I think we will move the git repos to pagure. but if we find it does 
not work and it is too much work to make it suit then we should be open to 
looking at something else.

> > - kallithea (https://kallithea-scm.org/)
> > 
> >     This project has been growing interest and to the best of my
> > 
> > knowledge is that it's slated towards being used officially by
> > upstream CPython developers at python.org, however some have mentioned
> > in #fedora-releng that there are missing features that we'd need/want
> > so this might require a bit of initial heavy lifting to add upstream.
> > (also no current support for FAS integration)
> 
> Also not packaged which could be a big hurdle if you want Fedora
> Infrastructure to host it.
> 
> > Alright, with all that said. I'd like to kind of round this back to a
> > set of requirements for the group in terms of the new workflow and
> > tooling:
> > 
> > I think everyone agrees that we need:
> > 1) Code Review
> > 2) Easy viewing/reference of code review history
> > 3) Accountability for 1 & 2
> > 
> > If there are others, or things I have left out please let me know.
> > 
> > OK, that's it! If you made it this far, I owe you a cookie or
> > something.
> > 
> > Please provide feedback, questions, and general snide remarks.
> 
> Thanks for bringing things up...

Indeed thanks

> kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/rel-eng/attachments/20150424/cf40e5b3/attachment.sig>