On 2 November 2019 10:18:20 CET, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 09:23:37 +0100, Markus Larsson wrote:
> Not having this planned for and sorted before the change is sloppy.
> Sadly this kind of attitude towards breakage in a production
> environment seems makes fedora look bad and like we as a community
> can't even keep simple services working. It seems the whole move to
> discourse thing was done without proper planning.
> Do we not follow any type of change procedures?
I hate to break your bubble here, but the move took months of planning:
https://pagure.io/fedora-join/Fedora-Join/issues?status=Closed&tags=C...
https://pagure.io/fedora-join/Fedora-Join/issue/91
Clearly planning missed since 404 message had to be fixed after the fact.
This doesn't mean that everyone is bad etc, please keep issue and person separate.
It just means that this wasn't a successful change but rather a learning opportunity.
and was announced when moved over later:
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/askfedora-refresh-weve-moved-to-d...
Here's a summary:
- we did not host askbot, and we do not host discourse. This is because
we do not have the manpower to maintain/update/tweak the
infrastructure required to host these. So, we pay them to host the
instances for us.
When choosing to use use the same URL as an existing service one plans for trouble.
This means that we *do not* have access to the servers---no control
over the lower level server configurations. All we can change are
settings from the GUI admin panel that discourse provides. This does
not provide the ability to set up redirects. The plaintext on the 404
page can be changed, that is all.
This is a red herring. Rewriting 404 messages had to be done after the fact since it was
missed in the initial change.
The 404 messages was only needed because of URL reuse.
- Even if we did have access to the servers, there is no clean/easy way
of migrating data from askbot to discourse. Resources would have to be
spent on cleaning/anonymisation/user-mapping/badge-karma
mapping/importing. We did not the required man-power to do this.
I didn't say data has to be migrated.
So, what we have now is what could be achieved with the man power that
we obtained from volunteers in the community, and with the technical
limitations that we had to work with.
We've spent a lot of time explaining this to our users, many of who had
not read the CoC and used similar negative tones to demand that
everything be moved over, or simply state how bad a job we had done.
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/where-have-the-old-posts-gone/655/45
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/hello-everyone-what-do-you-think/138/5
With users, even though not enjoyable, it was understandable---they are
not aware of how the community works and its limitations. Such tones on
the -devel list within the community are less easy to digest.
Maybe assume that we are slightly knowledgable and competent, did the
planning and the thinking (and we certainly did the work), and this is
simply the best that was possible within the given parameters? That is
certainly more in line with "be excellent to each other" than what you
are saying now.
If this has made you feel bad I apologize. I mean you no harm in any way.
Clearly my tone has been off here since I managed to offend you.
>
>Even though I will not participate in this again, please feel free to
>continue the discussion---if folks want to improve AskFedora, please
>host a test discourse instance, see what can be tweaked from the admin
>panel, and suggest improvements. We have a specific category for that:
>https://ask.fedoraproject.org/c/site-feedback