Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Hi, On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 08/21/2015 06:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? A domain 100 operated and owned by Fedora (rsp. RH) and covered by the Fedora CLA. Whether github is popular does not matter all. It's third party out of Fedora's control. What you are doing, means pushing Fedora users around, in what I consider very rude ways. Fedora is part of the larger open source comunity. Fedora Infrastructure uses 100% open source software. All irrelevant. Bohdi is just a tool used by Fedora, like any other arbitrary tool. I.e. I am not interested in getting involved in bodhi, I am just using the bodhi instance Fedora has deployed and I am expecting to have a way to contact the Fedora personnel to report bugs. Anyhow, for the last time: github is currently the perferred way to report bodhi2 bugs. And for illiterate: github a legitimate way for upstream, but is not a way, which is acceptable to Fedora users. You guys, need to learn to distinguish your roles as upstream and as maintainers of an installation - These are *not* identical. If you have some objection to them, you can file a fedorahosted ticket or infrastructure fedorahosted ticket. Also, I have been trying to file tickets on issues I see in mailing lists that aren't filed. I am close to filing a ticket to FESCO and/or the Board/Council, to request to revert to bodhi one - bodhi2 has proven to suffer from very ugly bugs and to be close to being unusable. I am sure moving to bodhi2 will have definitely some advantages that is why this move happened but I also don't see any usage document for bodhi2 before/when it went live. Also bodhi is really important service for Fedora so when its deployed on staging server for testing, testers should have been called at least to comment on any functionality/UI related problem. I have also seen developers have worked to fix/triage almost all the filed issues against bodhi2. If there are any major issues in bodhi2 then let's provide as much as input to them and they will try to quickly fix them. But as move has already happen let's use bodhi2 and not to go back. Regards, Parag -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/21/2015 06:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? A domain 100 operated and owned by Fedora (rsp. RH) and covered by the Fedora CLA. Whether github is popular does not matter all. It's third party out of Fedora's control. What you are doing, means pushing Fedora users around, in what I consider very rude ways. Fedora is part of the larger open source comunity. Fedora Infrastructure uses 100% open source software. All irrelevant. Bohdi is just a tool used by Fedora, like any other arbitrary tool. I.e. I am not interested in getting involved in bodhi, I am just using the bodhi instance Fedora has deployed and I am expecting to have a way to contact the Fedora personnel to report bugs. Anyhow, for the last time: github is currently the perferred way to report bodhi2 bugs. And for illiterate: github a legitimate way for upstream, but is not a way, which is acceptable to Fedora users. You guys, need to learn to distinguish your roles as upstream and as maintainers of an installation - These are *not* identical. If you have some objection to them, you can file a fedorahosted ticket or infrastructure fedorahosted ticket. Also, I have been trying to file tickets on issues I see in mailing lists that aren't filed. I am close to filing a ticket to FESCO and/or the Board/Council, to request to revert to bodhi one - bodhi2 has proven to suffer from very ugly bugs and to be close to being unusable. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 07:02:51 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. The fedorahosted instance is still there, you can use it if you like. Likely it will be migrated to pagure.io before too long, we just didn't have time to do so before this deployment. To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. Ralf pagure.io is developed and run in fedora and uses fas for auth. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:56:02 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Kevin Fenzi wrote: Theres a bunch of tools out there to export issues from github They can turn this off at any moment, leaving you with no way to get your data out. Yep. This is the case for any project using non free tools... In fact it's also the case if you _are_ using 100% free tools too, as someone could say sorry, we no longer want to host this and have turned off everything. So, I guess you could run a pagure.io instance locally and sync it to a remote one or something. But then it's up to you to back it up and such. My point is that exposing our code to a much wider group of developers is not a valid argument for using GitHub instead of Fedora Hosted, because one should be able to expect contributors to Fedora infrastructure code to sign up for a FAS account to contribute. Sure, that was just one part of using github, not the entire reason. Also, I wasn't someone who made that decision. Also, we are moving bodhi to pagure.io soon. So, I think this is my last reply here. ;) kevin pgpWh_5ZjCuNn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? Fedora is part of the larger open source community. Fedora Infrastructure uses 100% open source software. We don't however dictate to all those projects that they must also in turn use 100% open source tools and hosting. We can surely urge them to do so, but they are under no obligation to listen to us. That said, Fedora should not start being rude and push people around to get accounts on other commercial entities and to expose themselves to the risks implied by this. Instead we should be rude and force developers of projects to do what we want? Anyhow, for the last time: github is currently the perferred way to report bodhi2 bugs. If you have some objection to them, you can file a fedorahosted ticket or infrastructure fedorahosted ticket. Also, I have been trying to file tickets on issues I see in mailing lists that aren't filed. Good day. kevin pgpc0KFeEHUDA.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 07:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, I don't know if there was a Big Philosophical Discussion, but in practice all kinds of Fedora-ish stuff has its upstream in github these days, so yes, clearly times have changed. That's not the point. I am talking about separating Fedora web-infrastructure from the web-infrastructure's upstreams. In this case, I am talking about Fedora's infrastructure deployment/installation (A Fedora product - Responsible: Fedora) of bodhi to demand reporting bugs on Fedora's infrastructure to upstream (A bodhi-project product - Responsible: Upstream). In other words: Nobody with a sane mind would ask users of web shop's installation to file bugs at Oracle/MySQL etc - This is what is happening here. It's a classical case where people with multiple roles are unable to distinguish their roles. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 06:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. The fedorahosted instance is still there, you can use it if you like. Likely it will be migrated to pagure.io before too long, we just didn't have time to do so before this deployment. To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: And this as well. I just tried to create an update for F23 and was just told unable to create update. So be it, ... give me a ping when you think bodhi is ready for public usage. ATM it definitely is not. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 20/08/15 10:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: And this as well. I just tried to create an update for F23 and was just told unable to create update. So be it, ... give me a ping when you think bodhi is ready for public usage. ATM it definitely is not. I had the same issue trying to create an update for F23. I was able to manage it eventually by using fedpkg update, once I'd updated python-fedora from F21 updates-testing. However, I later needed to edit that update to change the build, and the result is an update with no builds that I can't even access any more. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/202 Looks like you need to hit enter after typing/pasting in the package NVR into the Candidate Builds field, which was not at all obvious to me. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 07:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:37 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.html Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? For what? :) IMHO, I think projects should be free to choose whatever tools they wish to build their project. Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. That said, Fedora should not start being rude and push people around to get accounts on other commercial entities and to expose themselves to the risks implied by this. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 12:00 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 20/08/15 10:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: And this as well. I just tried to create an update for F23 and was just told unable to create update. So be it, ... give me a ping when you think bodhi is ready for public usage. ATM it definitely is not. I had the same issue trying to create an update for F23. I was able to manage it eventually by using fedpkg update, once I'd updated python-fedora from F21 updates-testing. However, I later needed to edit that update to change the build, and the result is an update with no builds that I can't even access any more. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/202 Looks like you need to hit enter after typing/pasting in the package NVR into the Candidate Builds field, which was not at all obvious to me. Aha ;() I just somehow managed to push an update - No idea how. While filling out the update form for a second time (The first try had failed with the error above), out of a sudden a large number of popups with checkboxes inside popped up. After checking some of them, the update was reported to have been pushed, except that the BZ, I had added manually seems to have been ignored - Seems to me, as is this popup is not offering BZ's which have been closed rawhide but require further action for fc23. BTW: Something with time stamps of the rpmlint/taskotron checks seem to be wrong, as well. I my case rpmlint reported to have checked the package hours ago, while I had commited the package into git ca. 1/2 hour ago and submitted it minutes ago. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:39:20 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Paul W. Frields wrote: This is correct. The infra team discussed this some time ago and since Github does nothing to lock up the resources we care about, So you'd only see lock-in to proprietary infrastructure as a problem if they were actively locking things up? Even if now, everything can be exported, who says the feature will not have been removed by the time we need it? Sure, you have local clones of the git repositories, but what about issues in the issue tracker? Theres a bunch of tools out there to export issues from github. and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, If a developer wants to contribute to Fedora infrastructure, surely, signing up for a FAS account cannot be an unacceptable barrier to entry! I'm not able to parse this really... but sure, if you don't want to go to github, as I noted N emails back, you are welcome to use the fedorahosted trac or patches in emails to lists. among other reasons, judged it OK. Having a PR-based workflow has helped the team be a lot more agile at no cost to the freedom of our code. I still don't get what is supposed to be easier about: ...snip... I'm not going to convince you to use github. It doesn't matter if you or I like it, lots and lots of other people do. Be that as it may, there is now pagure, and I imagine many if not all of these repos will be moving there. Incidentally, pagure has some functionality to allow bidirectional code movement with Github, which gets the best of both worlds. Code, yes, but what about issues? You can export them via a number of tools. If someone doesn't like making a Github account, in the interim they're still free to fork as would be usual for any repo (including hundreds of projects we carry in Fedora repositories), and send a patch to the list. And how should they report a bug without a GitHub account if you point everyone to GitHub as your official issue tracker? Well, they could use the fedorahosted trac, or the infrastructure mailing list or irc or whatever. This is likely my last reply in this thread, as I noted N mails ago, bodhi is likely to move to pagure.io now that we have that and it gets us most everything github has. So, trying to convince us to move this project from github when we are already doing it seems... pointless. kevin pgpLpw0UrhXZ2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: Theres a bunch of tools out there to export issues from github They can turn this off at any moment, leaving you with no way to get your data out. and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, If a developer wants to contribute to Fedora infrastructure, surely, signing up for a FAS account cannot be an unacceptable barrier to entry! I'm not able to parse this really... but sure, if you don't want to go to github, as I noted N emails back, you are welcome to use the fedorahosted trac or patches in emails to lists. My point is that exposing our code to a much wider group of developers is not a valid argument for using GitHub instead of Fedora Hosted, because one should be able to expect contributors to Fedora infrastructure code to sign up for a FAS account to contribute. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Friday, August 21, 2015, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: vs. 1'. clone the upstream repository, 2'. commit your change(s) to the clone, 3'. export your patch(es) with git format-patch, 4'. open an issue through a web interface, 5'. attach the patch(es) to the issue (except of course on GitHub, where 5' is not possible because they do not allow attaching anything other than images/pictures to their issue tracker, presumably to force everyone to use the pull request workflow). I'd only expect pull request functionality only, if we can have nice looking interface like github PR, it'd be great. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:33 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.h tml Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? (following on from previous mail) that specific link, though, is talking about something completely different. That would be using the non-free software *as part of infra*, not just hosting some open source code we run in infra on a service that is not free. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:37 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.html Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? For what? :) IMHO, I think projects should be free to choose whatever tools they wish to build their project. You are of course free to choose to not use that application/project based on that or other factors. Closed source applications are not something we ever want to run in Fedora Infrastructure, we run all open source applications. We don't drop or remove applications that choose to use non free tools (like github) to develop their open source application. Partly because IMHO it seems poor to try and dictate to projects we simply use applications from how they work, and partly because it's a grey line. If we say no non free tools can be used to develop any application we use how do we audit that? If some contributor runs a non free tool and uses it to improve an application how do we know? Should we likewise remove all these things from Fedora? Does the line include running servers with non free firmware? Storage appliances? Routers? I think the best we can do is run 100% open source applications and urge upstreams to use free tools to create and manage those where possible. kevin pgp5kCd5RENFv.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.html Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:33 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.h tml Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? Well, I don't know if there was a Big Philosophical Discussion, but in practice all kinds of Fedora-ish stuff has its upstream in github these days, so yes, clearly times have changed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: Looks like you need to hit enter after typing/pasting in the package NVR into the Candidate Builds field, which was not at all obvious to me. Hi, thanks for the hint. That made it work, the package name is repeated below the entry with a checkbox, after pressing the Enter. That's not intuitive at all. What I'm doing is filling a web form, such forms are usually submitted by pressing Enter, I wouldn't think of pressing Enter in an edit input field. Also because it was not needed when working with bodhi before. D'oh, the bug reference is lost and the bug not updated. Nonetheless, the update is filled. I hope. I guess. Bye, Milan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: IMHO, I think projects should be free to choose whatever tools they wish to build their project. You are of course free to choose to not use that application/project based on that or other factors. Closed source applications are not something we ever want to run in Fedora Infrastructure, we run all open source applications. We don't drop or remove applications that choose to use non free tools (like github) to develop their open source application. Partly because IMHO it seems poor to try and dictate to projects we simply use applications from how they work, and partly because it's a grey line. But this is a project where Fedora *is* upstream! One thing is the standards we require for being packaged in Fedora or used in Fedora infrastructure. Another is what we expect from our *own* projects. And there, requiring Fedora infrastructure to be used is very reasonable. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:24:18 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: But this is a project where Fedora *is* upstream! I assume you mean bodhi by this. The primary bodhi developers are heavily involved in Fedora, but are also involved in other communities. When is a project Fedora ? There are other installs of bodhi out in the world (at least there were) where we get contributions from. One thing is the standards we require for being packaged in Fedora or used in Fedora infrastructure. Another is what we expect from our *own* projects. And there, requiring Fedora infrastructure to be used is very reasonable. Well, I guess we will agree to disagree then. kevin pgpCkNoHt74Bk.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:40:40AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:33 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.h tml Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? (following on from previous mail) that specific link, though, is talking about something completely different. That would be using the non-free software *as part of infra*, not just hosting some open source code we run in infra on a service that is not free. This is correct. The infra team discussed this some time ago and since Github does nothing to lock up the resources we care about, and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, among other reasons, judged it OK. Having a PR-based workflow has helped the team be a lot more agile at no cost to the freedom of our code. Be that as it may, there is now pagure, and I imagine many if not all of these repos will be moving there. Incidentally, pagure has some functionality to allow bidirectional code movement with Github, which gets the best of both worlds. If someone doesn't like making a Github account, in the interim they're still free to fork as would be usual for any repo (including hundreds of projects we carry in Fedora repositories), and send a patch to the list. -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 02:40:10PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:24:18 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: But this is a project where Fedora *is* upstream! I assume you mean bodhi by this. The primary bodhi developers are heavily involved in Fedora, but are also involved in other communities. When is a project Fedora ? There are other installs of bodhi out in the world (at least there were) where we get contributions from. Right, considering Fedora as equivalent to the upstream here is incorrect. These projects are meant to be forkable to any project (free or not), of which Fedora is only one. One thing is the standards we require for being packaged in Fedora or used in Fedora infrastructure. Another is what we expect from our *own* projects. And there, requiring Fedora infrastructure to be used is very reasonable. Well, I guess we will agree to disagree then. Agreed with kfenzi. -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. The fedorahosted instance is still there, you can use it if you like. Likely it will be migrated to pagure.io before too long, we just didn't have time to do so before this deployment. kevin pgplDo7758fzG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Paul W. Frields wrote: This is correct. The infra team discussed this some time ago and since Github does nothing to lock up the resources we care about, So you'd only see lock-in to proprietary infrastructure as a problem if they were actively locking things up? Even if now, everything can be exported, who says the feature will not have been removed by the time we need it? Sure, you have local clones of the git repositories, but what about issues in the issue tracker? and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, If a developer wants to contribute to Fedora infrastructure, surely, signing up for a FAS account cannot be an unacceptable barrier to entry! among other reasons, judged it OK. Having a PR-based workflow has helped the team be a lot more agile at no cost to the freedom of our code. I still don't get what is supposed to be easier about: 1. create a personal fork through a web interface, 2. clone the fork, 3. commit your change(s) to the clone, 4. push it/them to your fork, 5. open a pull request through a web interface vs. 1'. clone the upstream repository, 2'. commit your change(s) to the clone, 3'. export your patch(es) with git format-patch, 4'. open an issue through a web interface, 5'. attach the patch(es) to the issue (except of course on GitHub, where 5' is not possible because they do not allow attaching anything other than images/pictures to their issue tracker, presumably to force everyone to use the pull request workflow). As for regular contributors, they should have direct commit access to upstream anyway. Be that as it may, there is now pagure, and I imagine many if not all of these repos will be moving there. Incidentally, pagure has some functionality to allow bidirectional code movement with Github, which gets the best of both worlds. Code, yes, but what about issues? If someone doesn't like making a Github account, in the interim they're still free to fork as would be usual for any repo (including hundreds of projects we carry in Fedora repositories), and send a patch to the list. And how should they report a bug without a GitHub account if you point everyone to GitHub as your official issue tracker? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
