On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:12:30AM -0500, Ralph Bean wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 01:30:26PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 3 March 2015 at 13:22, Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > I'd vote for 1 or 2 as things we can accomplish shorter-term.
Depending on how is/hard it is, I'd vote for this as well (see below). > > > > > > 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'm not sure progit is going to be ready to wholesale replace > fedorahosted anytime soon. Perhaps we can 'promote' it though to get > more of an idea of where its at, say give it a domain name at > progit.cloud.fedoraproject.org ? Let's get a few more people/projects > using it. While I kinda hope progit gets to a state where it is used and useful, I do not see our trac instances all moving away any time soon (thus the vote for 1 or/and 2). Having progit.dev.fedoraproject and later maybe progit.fedoraproject.org would already help (I'd rather have .dev. than .cloud. in the url as I believe it is more indicative of the state of the application there). I am planning on blogging and calling for testers once I got around fixing what I still want to fix (unit-tests and finish the git integration for tickets, git integration for pull-request is on the roadmap but I won't wait for it before calling for testers). More people testing will likely also help finding out how usable the system is. > I'm not sure that adding wiki features and trying to get parity with > trac's ticketing system are going to be simple. A barebones > implementation could be done, but there will be a long stream of > support/RFE tickets that follow if we head down that road. Regarding progit, it will not grow a wiki feature but offers the possibility to have a doc repo containing text, html, markdown or rest files (the last two will be rendered, the first two display). For the ticketing system, we currently have: Tags: Assigned: Blocking: Depends on: Status: So there won't be a roadmap as there is in trac, but this can be implemented using the Tags, issue dependency is in, as well as assigning issues. Do we need something else? Pierre
pgpKOgIHfDy08.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
