On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:34 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > Move to Pagure. I can do it right away if nobody objects, I've already set up > a group: > https://pagure.io/group/fedora-qa
Only note I'd have is it'd be best to just check in with sumantro and a2batic first, since they're working on the plan for transitioning the non-code stuff in trac. But I expect it'll be fine to use that group. > > Is this the point where we should finally decide whether to use > > Phabricator's built-in repository support or Pagure for this stuff and > > the stuff we currently host on bitbucket? > > Phabricator works well with remote repos, and I don't think there's > any strong advantage in using local Phab repos. On Pagure we will get > more visibility for the projects, easy forking, etc. Also certain > simple repos (like the one above) can be completely fine with Pagure > issue tracker and thus don't need to be configured in Phab (the UI is > more difficult there for filing new bugs). I'd go with Pagure, for > all our projects. In general I agree, I'd be happy for us to move pretty much everything into pagure. The only potential issues I see are: 1) What about issue tracking for the projects where we currently use Phab? For e.g., if we want to keep tracking issues/tasks in Phab exclusively, can we disable Pagure issue tracking (and make sure people can easily find their way to Phab issue tracking from Pagure?) 2) Similarly for pull requests - do we want to have parallel workflows, accepting both Pagure pull requests and Phab diffs? Or if we don't, can we disable Pagure PRs while providing sufficient breadcrumbs to get people into the Phab workflow? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
