On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:29 AM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 09:15, Julen Landa Alustiza > <jla...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > 20/3/30 08:40(e)an, James Cassell igorleak idatzi zuen: > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020, at 11:47 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 4:12 PM Aoife Moloney <amolo...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> ### Other Updates > > >>> > > >>> #### GitForge Decision > > >>> * After evaluating over 300 user stories from multiple stakeholders > we > > >>> have aligned on a decision for the Gitforge that CPE will operate for > > >>> the coming years. We are opting for Gitlab for our dist git and > > >>> project hosting and will continue to run pagure.io with community > > >>> assistance. > > >>> * Check out our GitForge decision on the Fedora Community blog > > >>> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/ > > >>> * And at the CentOS blog page > > >>> https://blog.centos.org/2020/03/git-forge-decision/ > > >>> * Keep an eye out for mails in the coming months to the devel lists > as > > >>> we plan transitions and next steps with GitLab > > >>> * We would like to express our sincere thank you to all who > > >>> contributed requirements to us! > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> I'm going to start with the delivery of this decision sucked. If I > > >> hadn't been alerted to look for this by other folks due to my advocacy > > >> and community building work around Pagure, I would *not* have known > > >> that the decision had been made. This is in contrast to the *big deal* > > >> that was made about starting this "decision process". I don't know if > > > > > > Indeed, it seems like the lead got buried. I, too, had missed the > announcement. I guess I'll make more effort to read these weekly status > updates. > > I missed that too! This is not a way to communicate such a big > decision. Plus we went from requirements gathering to the final > decision? Where's the rest of the process? > Here were the original phases after the Ideation Phase ended: CPE Management evaluate the requests and where necessary may instruct the CPE team to begin a Planning and Research phase to take in the inputs from the Ideation Phase We had internal research on the requirements within the team as planned. CPE design, develop and test proof of concept plans based on the decision made by CPE Management and share this with the Community We did not create any Proof of Concept as the weight of the decision shifted towards Gitlab when we completed our analysis and this sharing of the decision is to help us work out technical details and next steps CPE closes the ODF with a decision made and a path forward for our git forge The decision is made to go with Gitlab but as noted in the blog and in other replies we haven't worked out the details or path forward yet. This is that step in the process now. > > > From the original blow post: > > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ > > > > > How will information be gathered and disseminated? > > > > > > It is recommended that both Fedora Council and CentOS Board gather > > input and present their concerns in a manner that is consistent with how > > their communities work. The RHEL and CPE requirements will be gathered > > through Red Hat communication mechanisms and presented publicly via a > > HackMD file to ensure transparency in their source. This will be > > published and distributed in due course. Additionally, a live video call > > and associated IRC meetings will be held and advertised in advance to > > discuss the requirements, talk about concerns and address any questions. > > > We want transparency to be at the heart of this decision. > > > > Good promise, where are all those? No discussion, no advances, no proper > > information dissemination, nothing :( > > > > This announcement is not even on the first position on communityblog. I > > was expecting at least the same announcement visibility level for the > > final announcement that we had for the initial one: first position on > > communityblog blog + exclusive threads on the mailing lists. > > > > Well, actually I was waiting for those live discussions > > Moreover, Leigh Griffin said in the previous devel thread: > > > And if the requirements are stated we can have an open conversation about > > what does suit it. > > So I was also waiting for those open discussions about the > requirements gathered. We had several threads on them from the Fedora perspective on both devel and council lists. > I was really looking forward to reading what > Neal (as he's doing now) and others had to say about the requirements > *before* any decision was taken, and how each tool covers them or not, > and what kind of effort would require to cover it in the latter case. > This is *very* disappointing. > I'm sorry this is disappointing but even reading the analysis by Neal it is looking at the merit of the requirement and not looking at the fact that it is valuable to somebody. Each stakeholder group had their own means to discuss and debate the merits and had them rolled into CPE who in turn analysed them and published the full story list. > > In the final announcement in the Community Blog, this is listed as a > requirement: > > > 24/7 availability in an SLA model and not hosted by the CPE team freeing > > up resourcing and removing the need to staff a dedicated team for a git > > forge SLA which would necessitate a follow-the-sun ops model and a > > heavy investment in stability and observability of the Pagure solution. > > Ok, so I suppose that's it, check mate. I recall that several people in the initial thread argued that self-hosting was important to avoid > depending on third-parties. Obviously this requirement comes directly > from CPE and supersedes any of such arguments. There were several stakeholders whom requested rapid response on fixes and availability guarantees. This requirement did not come exclusively from CPE. > Also it automatically > rules Pagure out, It did not rule Pagure out as one viable route for us was to invest our team into Pagure. Ultimately that was not possible based on the asks of the CPE team from our stakeholders which includes the Fedora Community asks. > so GitLab is the only option even if it doesn't > cover many other requierements (as per Neal's analysis). > Github had a much better fit with respect to the overall requirements but was eliminated before deeper analysis was performed > > In the initial thread, I said: > > > When I first read the post, my thought was: wow, what a convoluted and > > abstruse way of saying "we want to abandon Pagure". > > Now that feeling has only been reinforced. > > Iñaki > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Leigh Griffin Engineering Manager Red Hat Waterford <https://www.redhat.com/> Communications House Cork Road, Waterford City lgrif...@redhat.com M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin @redhatjobs <https://twitter.com/redhatjobs> redhatjobs <https://www.facebook.com/redhatjobs> @redhatjobs <https://instagram.com/redhatjobs> <https://red.ht/sig>
_______________________________________________ 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
