On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, 21:26 clime, wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 17:52, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 15:35 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Does it mean you
For what it's worth, Jeremy, Randy, and others: I absolutely value your
contributions both now and in the past. Members of the the Fedora
Engineering team and CPE in all previous and current names and incarnations
have done and continue to do amazing things which have beeen *essentially*
valuable
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 03:08, Randy Barlow wrote:
>
> On 4/6/20 6:37 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > I'm sorry if you took my mail up as implying a lack of value from how
> > the team historically worked. As a team we are being tasked more and
> > more with adding what I call real value which is at a
On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 09:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 15:08 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM Frank Ch. Eigler
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > [...] Nor would it have helped with the SLA requirements and
> > > > operational cost. [...]
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 16:02:34 +0100,
Leigh Griffin wrote:
Our stakeholder and engagement point as a team is Fedora Council. If you
have issues with how this was handled from a relationship perspective then
please take that up with the Council. We have engaged with fesco in the
past at the
On 4/6/20 6:37 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
I'm sorry if you took my mail up as implying a lack of value from how
the team historically worked. As a team we are being tasked more and
more with adding what I call real value which is at a new app / service
level that has scale, quality and
Leigh Griffin writes:
>> If you had stopped at the first
>> objections and revisited the decision making process with the rest of
>> the community involved in an open manner, you would have been forgiven,
>> because everyone here is trying to assume good faith. Alas, you haven't
>> done that.
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 17:52, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 15:35 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>> >
>> > > Does it mean you didn't consider dist-git<->zuul integration vs. Gitlab
>> > > CI? I.e. technical
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred
> > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the
> > first and most important
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> Ok let's scenario this out so as several people want us to restart […]
In this context of "restarting the scenario":
> How do we accommodate that when our other stakeholders' needs are now
> not being met as a whole and when the
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 17:05, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:36 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 06 April 2020 at 12:29, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the
>> >
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 15:35 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> > > Does it mean you didn't consider dist-git<->zuul integration vs. Gitlab
> > > CI? I.e. technical differences and advantages of each? If you did, can
> you,
> > > please,
On 4/6/20 11:17 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
It's a form of engagement among others that we are partaking in day in
day out, week in week out.
Ironically, you have illustrated my point here with your response, which
isn't engagement.
I have answered every question directly, if I missed one in
On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 15:35 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
> > Does it mean you didn't consider dist-git<->zuul integration vs. Gitlab
> > CI? I.e. technical differences and advantages of each? If you did, can you,
> > please, publish it? It would be valuable info for the community and
> >
On 4/6/20 11:02 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
Ok let's scenario this out so as several people want us to restart and
go again, largely because they disagree with the decision and Pagure is
the choice that they would have made.
Much of the consternation is due to you not having employed an open
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:49 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
> On 4/6/20 10:36 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > Answering 100+ replies individually is engaging with the community.
> > Happy to stop that if people aren't seeing the benefit of it though.
>
> Writing 100 e-mails isn't automatically "engagement".
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:36 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Monday, 06 April 2020 at 12:29, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> [...]
> > > Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the
> > > community.
> > >
> > > Not following the standard procedures
On 4/6/20 10:36 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
Answering 100+ replies individually is engaging with the community.
Happy to stop that if people aren't seeing the benefit of it though.
Writing 100 e-mails isn't automatically "engagement".
I could reply to what you wrote above with "If I had a world
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:48 AM Josh Boyer
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:42 AM Stasiek Michalski
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski
> > > >
> > > > Why is it disappointing? The Pagure project
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:10 PM Julen Landa Alustiza <
jla...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 20/4/6 12:29(e)an, Leigh Griffin igorleak idatzi zuen:
>
> > Around 10 tickets a month is the average I believe for infra to deal
> > with / handle from direct pings.
> >
> Where?
>
Infra queue
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:59 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 06. 04. 20 12:13, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> > You certainly didn't engage with the community.
> >
> >
> > We did.
>
> Not enough. You did initially but than you've stopped. You repeating "we
> have
> made a decision" in various
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:56 AM clime wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 6 April 2020, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the community.
>>>
>>> Not following the standard procedures caused that I and probably many
>>> people in the
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:15 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 06. 04. 20 v 14:34 Josh Boyer napsal(a):
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski
> > wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
> >>> >>>
> >>> $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that
Dne 06. 04. 20 v 14:34 Josh Boyer napsal(a):
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
>>> >>
>>> $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the
>>> "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12
On 4/6/20 6:37 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
I'm sorry if you took my mail up as implying a lack of value from how
the team historically worked.
It's a classic no-no to start an apology with "I'm sorry *if you*". It's
not an apology at all, it's a defense disguised as an apology. It is
thus
On 4/6/20 6:13 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
CPE is entirely unique in this industry and is not perfectly aligned to
the idealistic software engineering process, we are getting there.
No software team is perfectly aligned to the idealistic software
engineering process. CPE is not unique in that
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:34:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Why is it disappointing? The Pagure project isn't suddenly being
> removed from the internet. Is there a reason you can't contribute to
> it to add the features you need?
From my experience, I know that many of my contributions are
On Monday, 06 April 2020 at 12:29, Leigh Griffin wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the
> > community.
> >
> > Not following the standard procedures caused that I and probably
> > many people in the community didn't pay much attention to it.
>
> We followed
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:48 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:42 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski
> > > > >
> > > Why is it disappointing? The Pagure project isn't suddenly being
> > > removed from the internet. Is there a
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:42 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski
> > >
> > Why is it disappointing? The Pagure project isn't suddenly being
> > removed from the internet. Is there a reason you can't contribute to
> > it to add the features you
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:42 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski
> > >
> > Why is it disappointing? The Pagure project isn't suddenly being
> > removed from the internet. Is there a reason you can't contribute to
> > it to add the features you
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote:
>
> Why is it disappointing? The Pagure project isn't suddenly being
> removed from the internet. Is there a reason you can't contribute to
> it to add the features you need?
I can add features, sure, and I do, but I am also not able
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
> > >
> > $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the
> > "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12 works out to
> > roughly $3 million per year
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
>
> $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the
> "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12 works out to
> roughly $3 million per year just for Fedora, assuming we never let
> anybody other than
20/4/6 12:29(e)an, Leigh Griffin igorleak idatzi zuen:
> Around 10 tickets a month is the average I believe for infra to deal
> with / handle from direct pings.
>
Where?
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues?status=all=src.fp.o=pagure=0_status=
lists 50 tickets for the last year and
On 06. 04. 20 12:13, Leigh Griffin wrote:
You certainly didn't engage with the community.
We did.
Not enough. You did initially but than you've stopped. You repeating "we have
made a decision" in various threads over and over is not "engaging with the
community", it is the exact
On Monday, 6 April 2020, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the community.
>>
>> Not following the standard procedures caused that I and probably many
>> people in the community didn't pay much attention to it.
>>
>
> We followed the
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:15 PM Jeremy Cline wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
>
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 17:00 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jeremy Cline
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal
>
>
> Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the community.
>
> Not following the standard procedures caused that I and probably many
> people in the community didn't pay much attention to it.
>
We followed the procedures that were outlined to us.
>
> I thought you are simply
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:14 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 01 April 2020 at 12:37, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a):
> [...]
> > > > To be clear, you mean something like app above the
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:43 AM Randy Barlow
wrote:
> On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > This is how a specific flavour of software development works centered on
> > a singular product, with a shared vision. The CPE relationship with
> > stakeholders is unique, it's clear the visions are
On Wednesday, 01 April 2020 at 12:37, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a):
[...]
> > > To be clear, you mean something like app above the dist-git where
> > > you could do most of the things that are needed for dist-git
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:11 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> I also hope there will be an opportunity for discussion (with input
> from the community) of whether those requirements can be fulfilled in
> some way *other* than using a non-free Gitlab product. To take the
> 'merge train' example - as
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 14:04, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:42 PM Randy Barlow
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > We didn't quash communication for reasons already mentioned. We didn't
> > > facilitate it is a more accurate assessment, for which we
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:42 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > We didn't quash communication for reasons already mentioned. We didn't
> > facilitate it is a more accurate assessment, for which we have
> > acknowledged and apologized.
>
> You certainly didn't
On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
This is how a specific flavour of software development works centered on
a singular product, with a shared vision. The CPE relationship with
stakeholders is unique, it's clear the visions are not aligned across
all bodies (and we do not expect it to be)
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 20:26 Randy Barlow
wrote:
> On 4/3/20 3:08 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > It may have caught that for sure but it would have opened a lot more
> > problems as stakeholders try to counter each others requirements with
> > new more specific requirements to influence the
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:46 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > > Another is requirement 19 ("As a Project
> > contributor...I want to be able to use kanban boards...So that
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:46 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > I assume Gitlab likes money. :P
>
> $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the
> "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12 works
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:53:18PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:55:48AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > (side note: can people please try and trim their replies to this list?
> > I know gmail
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:46 pm, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
packages
Sorry, I meant: packagers
Probably only packagers need access to dist-git, but we have other
Fedora teams besides packagers that will need to use the instance too.
So that's a minimum
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson
wrote:
I assume Gitlab likes money. :P
$100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the
"requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12 works out to
roughly $3 million per year just for Fedora, assuming we never
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:41 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said:
> > Fedora Infrastructure has always been open and welcoming of community
> > work. The VAST majority of folks who have worked on it (at least the
> > operations side) in the past or are now, started out
Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said:
> Fedora Infrastructure has always been open and welcoming of community
> work. The VAST majority of folks who have worked on it (at least the
> operations side) in the past or are now, started out in the community
> and eventually ended up doing it full time.
On 4/3/20 3:08 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
It may have caught that for sure but it would have opened a lot more
problems as stakeholders try to counter each others requirements with
new more specific requirements to influence the decision.
This is how software development is *supposed* to work.
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:28 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that
> > > > would have come to light very quickly if
Hi Leigh,
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 17:00 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jeremy Cline
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny <
> > mkone...@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:22 Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 20:12 +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>
> On 3 April 2020 19:18:57 CEST, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> > > FOSS is always our strong
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 17:42 Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin
> wrote:
> > > > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list,
> > > > then? If this is supposed to be an open
On 4/3/20 1:53 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Honestly, the main app I have trouble seeing a broader community for
is Bodhi. It*could* be done, but I'd have to sit down and do a fair
bit of work to figure out what parts are "Fedora-only" verses
"Fedora-favored". It speaks volumes that even*Red Hat*
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:22 Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> > > FOSS is always our strong preference where
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that
> > > would have come to light very quickly if the open process which was
> > > committed to at the start had actually
On 3 April 2020 19:18:57 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
>> FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
>> not leave that in as a user
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:55:48AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> (side note: can people please try and trim their replies to this list?
> I know gmail makes that hard, but it's anoying to read a thread where
> you have to keep
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:55:48AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
...snip...
(side note: can people please try and trim their replies to this list?
I know gmail makes that hard, but it's anoying to read a thread where
you have to keep hitting page down to get the next few lines of new
text. Thanks
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 10:08 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > I see one more trend nobody is really talking about.
> >
> > Once there appears somebody brilliant in community, sooner or later Red
> > Hat hires him. Unfortunately, this
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> > FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
> > not leave that in as a user
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that
> > would have come to light very quickly if the open process which was
> > committed to at the start had actually been followed through on.
>
> You are absolutely right. I
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
> not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of
Eh, I remember it
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> I see one more trend nobody is really talking about.
>
> Once there appears somebody brilliant in community, sooner or later Red
> Hat hires him. Unfortunately, this rarely means that the person keeps
> their independence. This
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:42:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> He is the FPL, he is not the Pope.
I think we can all agree that this is for the best. :)
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list --
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:42 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> The end result of this is that we (Fedora) have somehow indicated to
> CPE that we have no preference whatsoever for F/OSS tooling. I do not
> believe that should have been the case.
>
For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list,
> > > then? If this is supposed to be an open process?
> > @Ben Cotton can oblige here, it's not my place to
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>> Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list,
>> then? If this is supposed to be an open process?
> @Ben Cotton can oblige here, it's not my place to share it without a
> stakeholder approval.
The list sent to CPE
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jeremy Cline wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny
> > wrote:
> > > On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > > > The
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:04 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm looking at is the commit logs. That's all that ultimately
> > > matters. But see above revisions, of course.
> > >
> >
> > I think that's a very narrow view of the
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny
> wrote:
> > On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > > The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone
> > > >
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:45 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:58 PM Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields
> > wrote:
> > > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements.
> >
> > Of course, but the problem is that the
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
> > What I'm looking at is the commit logs. That's all that ultimately
> > matters. But see above revisions, of course.
> >
>
> I think that's a very narrow view of the world to base your assertions on
> commit logs only, I don't see the
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:49:43AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Marie is also working on reforming the web, design, and marketing teams
> > and building those up so we don't have to be directly dependent on Red
> > Hat in those areas (where, let's face it, Red Hat has historically
> >
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:15 am, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
Much of the strongest criticism in this thread (and the ELN thread)
is coming from Red Hat employees (often using personal email
addresses).
Vit, I spent quite some time composing that mail, yet managed to send
it *before* looking
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:11 am, Vít Ondruch
wrote:
Once there appears somebody brilliant in community, sooner or later
Red
Hat hires him. Unfortunately, this rarely means that the person keeps
their independence. This also means that later we are missing the
"pure"
community.
Much of the
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Julen Landa Alustiza
wrote:
>
>
>
> 20/4/3 10:06(e)an, Michal Konecny igorleak idatzi zuen:
> >
> >
> > On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote:
> >> Paul Frields wrote:
> >>> That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single
> >>> biggest
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:48 pm, Erich Eickmeyer
wrote:
It's very possible that the Fedora Council has
failed too for allowing this situation to happen.
I don't think this is entirely fair... Council hasn't had enough time
to react to this yet. It seems they failed to adequately communicate
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:48 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
> [up front: apologies for any weird formatting in this email, Evolution
> is crashing on me like crazy while I try to edit it, so I'm sending it
> from Roundcube which I don't
- Original Message -
> From: "Michal Konecny"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 10:06:26 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision
>
>
>
> On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul Frields
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:58 PM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields
> wrote:
> > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements.
>
> Of course, but the problem is that the requirements identified by CPE
> are wildly inconsistent with the actual
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >> The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone up
> >> drastically since I joined the team in 2019. You are possibly
On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone up
drastically since I joined the team in 2019. You are possibly not
seeing that as the team have moved from a model of siloed work
Dne 02. 04. 20 v 19:26 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:34:08AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>>> Yeah -- and this bigger picture is still the Fedora Project's overall
>>> goal. The change is in the mission of CPE vs. the previous Fedora
>>> Engineering team structure, not
On 3 April 2020 10:23:58 CEST, Julen Landa Alustiza
wrote:
>
>But there is an initiative to federate git forges, and they plan to
>implement it on gitlab. Oh sorry, I meant on pagure :)
>
>https://forgefed.peers.community/
Oh that is quite the opportunity right there. The CPE team could get
20/4/3 10:06(e)an, Michal Konecny igorleak idatzi zuen:
>
>
> On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote:
>> Paul Frields wrote:
>>> That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single
>>> biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open
>>> source, and
On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote:
Paul Frields wrote:
That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single
biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open
source, and thanks to its pervasiveness, open source has won the war
of how development
Il giorno ven, 03/04/2020 alle 09.20 +0200, Miro Hrončok ha scritto:
> On 03. 04. 20 1:25, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone up
> > > drastically since I joined the team in 2019. You
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:33, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 21:58 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
>
> [evolution is still crashing. sigh. such is life. apologies for
> formatting, again]
>
> > > So yeah, let's discount the releng folks first, because releng has
> > > existed all
On 03. 04. 20 1:25, Jeremy Cline wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone up
drastically since I joined the team in 2019. You are possibly not
seeing that as the team have moved from a model of siloed work on
- Original Message -
> From: "Erich Eickmeyer"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 2:02:23 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision
>
> On Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:56:33 PM PDT Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Cor
On Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:56:33 PM PDT Adam Williamson wrote:
> Correction here: the decision process *was* actually initiated quite
> publicly. It was announced in January, in a thread titled "Git Forge
> Requirements: Please see the Community Blog", which (as you'd guess)
> linked to a
On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 16:48 -0700, Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
>
> The root of this leadership failure seems to be that the discussion happened
> mostly behind closed doors without any announcement *to this list* that this
> was being discussed. Transparency is *key* in leadership.
Correction here:
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
