On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 09:22, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@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 J Smoogen.