Re: Taskotron wiki page

[Martin Krizek]

- Original Message -
 From: Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com
 To: Fedora QA Development qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org, Josef 
 Skladanka jskla...@redhat.com
 Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:00:33 PM
 Subject: Re: Taskotron wiki page
 
  I also updated
  
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Tools
  
  with the list of our current projects. If you see something missing, please
  add it. Thanks.
  
 
 Josef, I find this quite confusing:
 
 https://bitbucket.org/rajcze/resultsdb
 https://bitbucket.org/rajcze/resultsdb_api
 https://bitbucket.org/rajcze/resultsdb_frontend
 https://fedorahosted.org/ResultsDB/
 https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/ResultsDB.git
 
 What is the canonical source? Where should people report issues? Please, pick
 one location to keep the project in (it seems we're going bitbucket, or
 bitbucket+phab way) and kill the other site. Also make sure issues can't be
 reported on two different places, and forward people to the single one. And
 make sure your wiki page points to a correct location:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ResultsDB
 (I updated it before learning there are other sources of ResultsDB. You might
 have some more under your sleeve.)
 
 Thanks.
 
 As a general note, I'm not fully happy when the source code lives somewhere
 else than the issues do. It confuses people. But if we want to keep
 easy-to-browse-and-fork functionality (bitbucket) and full-featured-review
 functionality (phab), it seems we don't have much choice. At least we should
 always disable the issue support on bitbucket for every project.

Weren't we going to move repos to phab as well?

M.
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel

Re: Taskotron wiki page

[Tim Flink]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:23:40 -0500 (EST)
Martin Krizek mkri...@redhat.com wrote:

snip

  
  As a general note, I'm not fully happy when the source code lives
  somewhere else than the issues do. It confuses people. But if we
  want to keep easy-to-browse-and-fork functionality (bitbucket) and
  full-featured-review functionality (phab), it seems we don't have
  much choice. At least we should always disable the issue support on
  bitbucket for every project.
 
 Weren't we going to move repos to phab as well?

It's a possibility but not something that we'd discussed much as of yet.

Phabricator is capable of hosting repositories but it would require
some reconfiguration and testing. The feature is a newer addition and
I'd want to test it a bit in staging before moving all of our code
there.

Any thoughts on how soon we might want to explore this? If we go this
route, folks will have to upload their ssh pubkeys to phabricator
because I strongly suspect there's no clean way of getting that data
from FAS (if it's even possible at all).

Tim


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel