On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:34 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
Move to Pagure. I can do it right away if nobody objects, I've
already set up a group:
Only note I'd have is it'd be best to just check in with sumantro and
a2batic first, since they're working on the plan for transitioning the
non-code stuff in trac. But I expect it'll be fine to use that group.
> Is this the point where we should finally decide whether to use
> Phabricator's built-in repository support or Pagure for this stuff and
> the stuff we currently host on bitbucket?
Phabricator works well with remote repos, and I don't think there's
any strong advantage in using local Phab repos. On Pagure we will get
more visibility for the projects, easy forking, etc. Also certain
simple repos (like the one above) can be completely fine with Pagure
issue tracker and thus don't need to be configured in Phab (the UI is
more difficult there for filing new bugs). I'd go with Pagure, for
all our projects.
In general I agree, I'd be happy for us to move pretty much everything
into pagure. The only potential issues I see are:
1) What about issue tracking for the projects where we currently use
Phab? For e.g., if we want to keep tracking issues/tasks in Phab
exclusively, can we disable Pagure issue tracking (and make sure people
can easily find their way to Phab issue tracking from Pagure?)
2) Similarly for pull requests - do we want to have parallel workflows,
accepting both Pagure pull requests and Phab diffs? Or if we don't, can
we disable Pagure PRs while providing sufficient breadcrumbs to get
people into the Phab workflow?
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net