On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:23, Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:35 AM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 00:08, Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 22:06 Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 20:58, Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > This thread is serving as a source of requirements (although it has >> >> > meandered dramatically away from that) >> >> >> >> When I first read the post, my thought was: wow, what a convoluted and >> >> abstruse way of saying "we want to abandon Pagure". Probably this >> >> wasn't your intent, but that's what I got. And given the reactions, >> >> other people too. >> > >> > The linked blog to the ODF is very explicit that Pagure is one of the 3 >> > forge options we are considering. I can't stress enough that it's a viable >> > choice and ultimately what we opt for will come down to an analysis driven >> > by the requirements gathered. I'm unsure how the blog has been interpreted >> > any other way but hopefully this clears it up. >> >> The ODF is very explicit in the problem statement, and it specifically >> and clearly says that: >> >> 1. Pagure does not align with CPE. > > Correct and it's why we said this line, which you might have missed: > "While we can make exceptions to the mission statement, we first need to know > why we should consider a specific exception."
I didn't miss it, I was obviously cherry-picking, but the point was to argue why this thread "meandered dramatically away from" the initial purpose: if that was my initial feeling at first reading, probably that was the case for others. > CPE has not committed a team to it in over a year, we do state that as a > driving factor to why we want to engage in this conversation but your > assumption here is based on a particular outcome that sees Pagure not chosen. > If Pagure is chosen, we will commit a team. We are very clear on that. It wasn't so clear to me, but good to know. > Tell me what you do and how you interact with a forge? That's the point of > this exercise. Those with the most complex workflows would provide most value here. I only maintain a few simple packages at src.fp, and most of my work is in Copr. However, I would say that integration with FAS should be a requirement. Owning the development of the specific tool (whether a forge or not) is not a must, in principle, but it's a good thing IMO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that was one of the drivers e.g. to develop Copr instead of going for OBS. Iñaki _______________________________________________ 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
