On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:01 -0400, Digimer wrote: > On 2018-06-07 02:48 AM, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote: > > Jan Pokorný <jpoko...@redhat.com> writes: > > > > > > > > But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely > > > headed, > > > I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the > > > bandwagon inclined more towards free (as in freedom) software > > > principles. > > > > > > Possible options off the top of my head: > > > - GitLab, pagure: either their authoritative sites or self-hosted > > > - self-hosted cgit/whatever > > > > > > It would also allow us to reconsider our workflows, e.g. using > > > gerrit > > > for patch review queue (current silent force-pushes is a horrible > > > scheme!). > > > > > > > My general view is that I also feel (and have felt) a bit uneasy > > about > > free software projects depending so strongly on a proprietary > > service. However, unless self-hosting, I don't see how f.ex. GitLab > > is > > much of an improvement (Pagure might be a different story, but does > > it > > offer a comparable user experience?) in that regard, and anything > > hosted > > on "public" cloud is basically the same. ;) > > > > crmsh used to be hosted at GNU Savannah, which is Free with a > > capital F, > > but the admin experience, user experience and general > > discoverability in > > the world at large all left something to be desired. > > > > In regard to workflows, if everyone agrees, we should be able to > > improve > > that without moving. For example, if all changes went through pull > > requests, there is a "required reviews" feature in github. I don't > > know > > if that is something everyone want, though. > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/enabling-required-reviews-for-pull > > -requests/ > > > > Cheers, > > Kristoffer > > I think we need to hang tight and wait to see what the landscape > looks > like after the dust settles. There are a lot of people on different > projects under the Clusterlabs group. To have them all move in > coordination would NOT be easy. If we do move, we need to be certain > that it's worth the hassle and that we're going to the right place. > > I don't think either of those can be met just now. Gitlab has had > some > well publicized, major problems in the past. No solution I know of is > totally open, so it's a question of "picking your poison" which > doesn't > make a strong "move" argument. > > I vote to just hang tight, say for 3~6 months, then start a new > thread > to discuss further.
+1 I'd wait until the dust settles to see if a clear favorite emerges. Hopefully this will spur the other projects to compete more strongly on features. My gut feeling is that ClusterLabs may end up self-hosting one or another of the open(ish) projects; our traffic is low enough it shouldn't involve much admin. But as you suggested, I wouldn't look forward to the migration. It's a time sink that means less coding on our projects. -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
