On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 17:47 +0200, jkonecny(a)redhat.com wrote:
-- snip --
> As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally
> disagree.
> I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience tailored for
> our community from beginning to end. That's why we have Koji, Bodhi,
> Dist-Git, and many other tools in that part of the lifecycle. The
> packager experience is literally the lifeblood of the project, and
> our
> contributors are the core of what makes Fedora successful. Pagure
> gives us an opportunity to do right by them that I *really* don't
> think we can do with any alternatives.
>
> That does *not* mean that CPE team should be the sole owner of the
> Pagure *codebase*. On that point, I agree. And that's why I've spent
> a
> lot of time and energy since late 2018 working on building up that
> community. It's finally starting to bear fruit too: there's at least
> one entity interested in building a product around it and
> contributing
> to help support that product, there's the FSF preparing to launch a
> new forge using Pagure, there's the Trisquel GNU+Linux distribution
> working on a Pagure deployment to host their code and packaging, and
> there's a few other things I've got up my sleeve to help broaden the
> community with not just users, but also contributors.
It's great to hear this. Thanks a lot Neal for trying to find
consumers. I'm not sure if this information was available to Fedora
infrastructure during the decision. It means that we may have another
contributors.
I specifically mentioned at least the FSF angle on this mailing list,
over a month ago:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
so at least that part certainly *should* have been, if we assume it's
reasonable to expect those making this decision to be paying attention
to this list.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net