On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better discoverability and
visibility in the generic
development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a
read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out there. We
can use it as an opportunity to show what we do, but also to teach how
we do it. For example OpenStack has a bot which replies on every
GitHub issue and pull-request to the read-only mirrored repository
with a manual on how one can send the same change through the
OpenStack development process. We would need to do it the same way
anyway, if we land on anything other than GitHub.
I'm sorry, no. I absolutely despise the Gerrit workflow that OpenStack
uses. To me, the only thing worse than Gerrit is the email/bz patch
submission workflow we used prior to Pagure. Gerrit would be a step up
from that legacy workflow, but it pushes too much crap onto the
contributor that it's a great way to demotivate people.
Having contributed to projects using Gerrit, and previously dealt with
Gerrit based workflows, I can honestly say that Gerrit is absolutely a
miserable experience and the OpenStack project should feel bad about
the fact that they think Gerrit provides a good user experience.
What's worse is that the stupid bot that they use on GitHub mirrors is
completely unfriendly to drive-by contributors. The OpenStack Project
is an example of how to make it fundamentally driven by corporate
developers who force asinine workflows because they can't be bothered
to make a proper community full of a mixture of hobbyists and
corporate contributors. And don't get me started on the fact that
there are no distributions of OpenStack on community Linux
distributions anymore, which I further indicate as evidence that the
OpenStack community is too insular for its own good. RDO does not
count since it doesn't work on *real* community distributions like
Fedora.
While I don't necessarily agree with the tone, I must agree the the Gerrit
experience for drive by contributors is one of the most horrible ones I had.
I even think sending patches over e-mail is probably better.
The main reason I haven't pursued it is because CentOS CI is so
unreliable and awful. It's demoralizing getting failures and then
looking at Jenkins and seeing there are no logs of the failure. Or the
increasing number of "error" states where it just breaks...
This has been reported a year ago, without a fix so far:
During running tests, it's very hard to see what's happening
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/2
CI errors are undecipherable
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/43
CI errors happen far to often
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/44
I've been trying to make those issues a priority when we adapted gating, but I
was outvoted at FESCo.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
