On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 05:23, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > as a Copr contributor, I am missing a _standard_ design for integrating > our cool infrastructure into the _upstream_ work-flows. We have a lot of > teams trying to implement the same thing: >
I think we need to work out what technical debt means. When I think of technical debt, I am thinking of: 1. All our infrastructure relies on PDC which has a dead upstream, no working replacement and more stuff needing to work from it. 2. Our mailing lists run on a beta of mailman3 and the current tools are not packaged completely 3. mailman3 vm has possible disk issues 4. We have other servers we found we could not install to newer versions but have to run on dead OS versions 5. Our account system, FAS2 runs on RHEL-6 (but is happier on RHEL5) 6. Our openshift is running on an older version but the newer version needs a lot of planning of what hardware is going where. 7. ... etc etc etc I expect there are other items of technical debt but a lot of these take up most of my 50 to 60 hour weeks so it is what I think of versus new workflows or other items. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-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/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
