On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:56 AM Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:31 AM Julen Landa Alustiza < > jla...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> > >> Sincelery, after reading the initial announcement, I was expecting a > >> more visible and open to the community discussion scenario. > >> > > >> > For transparency, we have published the full User Story list which is > >> > linked within the blog and for ease of searching is > >> > here: https://hackmd.io/@My419-DISUGgo4gcmO1D6A/HJB74lcL8 > >> > > >> > This thread is also part of the open conversation on the decision. > >> > >> No, this is a post decision conversation, not the promised open and live > >> discussions *during* the process. > > > > > > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear to > us was that Gitlab was the decision to make. The next step in getting there > is what we are engaging in now to get thoughts and suggestions and expect > several threads in that capacity from a technical perspective in the coming > weeks and months. > > But that's the problem. It *wasn't* clear to all of us in Fedora and > CentOS communities. This is why I'm upset about this more than > anything else. This is a post-decision conversation that didn't follow > the "open decision-making process" that you had described earlier. > We followed the process as laid out, we had open discussions of the problem and concluded the ideation phase with a set of requirements delivered by Ben Cotton on behalf of the Fedora Community. We are now engaging openly on what the challenges and next steps are. > > You've made the decision that we're going to move to GitLab in a way > that feels like we were only given lip service to. You also gave no > chance for the Pagure community to respond to meet those needs in a > way that we wouldn't be required to move to GitLab. I'm unsure where you got the impression that there was an opportunity for either Forge to respond to meet future needs? The exercise looked at our short term needs and our long term investment. Had Pagure been the right choice on both fronts, we would have engaged with the Pagure community to bridge the feature gap. > I would have been > happier if you had said: "at this current time, GitLab makes sense for > us. We will engage with GitLab to figure out some more details, but > here are the things we considered critical gaps. Since we're not > making this move this year anyway, if these gaps can be closed by the > end of the year, we will consider staying on Pagure instead of going > forward with a plan of a GitLab migration." > That sounds reasonable when taken in a vacuum. We have needs to service as a team and delaying a decision by a year or more to possibly solve some of the technical problem isn't going to change the operational overhead that some of the requirements is mandating. They were requirements we didn't quiet fully grasp until we carried out the exercise. It is our intention to have something stood up on Gitlab in the coming weeks and made available for consumption by our Communities and team ASAP. > It feels like "welp GitLab because GitLab", ignoring that many folks > in Fedora did not want GitLab. The requirements presented to us by the Fedora Community made no reference to Gitlab or Pagure so this was not a case of Gitlab because. If anything, and as I stated in another reply, Github ticked more boxes. > It's like the Debian Alioth replacement > process all over again. And unlike Alioth, we have *serious* > integration across the board with Pagure, and a good chunk of it is > not possible to implement in GitLab. Features we have in here were > designed to meet the needs of Fedorans that we will be forced to give > up. > > We aim to keep feature parity and any gaps in requirements or tooling will be put forward to Gitlab for their roadmap integreations. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Leigh Griffin Engineering Manager Red Hat Waterford <https://www.redhat.com/> Communications House Cork Road, Waterford City lgrif...@redhat.com M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin @redhatjobs <https://twitter.com/redhatjobs> redhatjobs <https://www.facebook.com/redhatjobs> @redhatjobs <https://instagram.com/redhatjobs> <https://red.ht/sig>
_______________________________________________ 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
