On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:17:41PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:30:26 -0700
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 March 2015 at 13:22, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
>
> > Greetings.
> >
> > So, looking at fedorahosted, I thought I would start some discussion
> > about where we are and where we need to go short and longer term.
> >
> > Right now hosted03/04 are rhel6 and still in puppet. Short term, I
> > would very much like to move them to ansible, and ideally to rhel7.
> >
> > I looked into the trac situation upstream. We are currently using
> > 0.12.5 long term release on rhel6 (from epel6). There's a 0.12.6
> > thats out, but it looks like that might be the last release in the
> > 0.12 series (or there might be a 0.12.7, but thats likely to be
> > it). They are looking at doing releases yearly if they can manage,
> > so 1.2 would appear later this year, then 1.3, etc. It's not clear
> > how long 1.0 will be supported really. At least a year, but not
> > clear after that.
> >
> > So, as I see it, our options are:
> >
> > 1 Just move to ansible, leave on rhel6 for now until we decide
> > something better.
> >
> > 2 Move to ansible and rhel7, and build out trac-1.0 and plugins in
> > epel7. This will take a bit longer since there's so many plugins,
> > but shouldn't really be that hard.
> >
> > 3 Move to ansible and rhel7 and progit. I'm not sure if progit is
> > ready to replace trac though. I think it might need wiki features
> > and also more ticket handling stuff, since some of our projects use
> > trac ticketing heavily.
> >
> > 4 a combo of 2 and 3 (ie, offer trac and progit both)
> >
> > 5. a combo of 1 and 3 (ie, old trac projects stay on old hosted, we
> > move ones that want to progit, eventually we have a flag day and
> > move the rest).
> >
> >
> 5 sounds like the most likely. There are a lot of work flows which
> groups are using with the current trac. If they didn't.. they would
> have probably moved over to github by now. Having the old boxes on
> ansible is probably faster by at least 18 months over getting people
> moved to the newer system.
I refuse to use github because I personally think its very bad for us as
a open and transparent community and project that prides itself on
making sure everyone can mimic what we do exactly to use something
closed and proprietary. For my own projects I think I would mostly be
okay with progit though something would be needed for ticketing for
releng, wiki space would be good for some projects but is not really
needed on all projects. some like mash only have a git repo on
fedorahosted, there is no associated trac. I think 4 or 5 would both be
viable.
[Sorry for catching up late to this thread.]
I'm not comfortable yet with the idea of taking on the service
build-out that (3) represents above. That's a lot of commitment for
something I don't think we can call critical path. Github may be a
closed/paid service solution but it doesn't affect the public
availability, transparency or forkability of any of our code. And a
long-term investment in chasing that solution as a Fedora-specific
service to replace hosted is not necessarily the best use of our
resources.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow:
http://opensource.com