On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 13:46, Brian (bex) Exelbierd <bexel...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 09:22, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pin...@pingoured.fr> > wrote: > >> > > >> > >> There are two issues to unpack here: > >> > >> 1. We use a weird custom backend and custom protocol extensions. > >> > >> This should definitely be replaced if it makes sense. It’s more urgent > >> now that RHEL 6 is going EOL next year, and FAS 2 is still a Python > >> 2.6 application. FAS 3 *would* have fixed it, but interest by the FAS > >> developers died a while ago… > >> > >> Naturally, the replacement is equally in a poor state, but may have > >> some legs someday: https://github.com/fedora-infra/noggin > >> > >> 2. Ipsilon development was only considered important as part of being > >> tech preview in RHEL and now it’s not. > >> > >> There are some major problems here. First of all, Ipsilon development > >> has been gated by a single person. That person also seems to have > >> trouble making time to review pull requests. There has been interest > >> from the broader community about using and contributing to Ipsilon, > >> since unlike Keycloak, it is written in an accessible language > >> (Python). > >> > >> Getting Ipsilon to Python 3 would be enough for me to get started on > >> bootstrapping some of the other interested parties onto Ipsilon, and > >> hopefully give us a more sustainable community long-term. > >> > >> A final note here, I’m generally disappointed in how inaccessible > >> infrastructure resources are to the broader community, and while a > >> community OpenShift will alleviate some of that, I’m concerned that > >> more sophisticated services would still require the crap workflow we > >> have now for community vs infra. I’ve had thoughts about how to make > >> that better on a broader basis, but that’s probably for another time… > >> > >> > > > > I don't know what is worse.. that if we try to improve things by saying > we can't maintain everything we are crap, or if we don't try to improve > things by maintaining stuff poorly we are crap. Do you want to beat us in > the morning or evening or just both times so you can work out your > frustrations on how badly we do stuff? > > Stephen, I respect your read and interpretation of what is written by > Neal above. I also understand your lived experience. > > Thank you for your line, but you don't have to respect my comments as mine showed little respect to Neal or the list. I should not have sent it as is, I should not have flown off the handle, and I apologize for the comments. > I think what Neal is getting at is that we don't have any knowledge > yet about how the services we are looking for others (not infra team > members) to run will be managed. The current system is less than > desirable and what Neal is referencing. It'd be great to get more > detail about how we are enabling these apps to be run by others so we > can see what is possible. > > regards, > > bex > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
