I had replied to Fabio on IRC but... :-)
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guido Aulisi" <[email protected]>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:48:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog
>
>
>
> > Il giorno 21 gen 2020, alle ore 18:15, Fabio Valentini
> > <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Everyone,
> >>
> >> On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a
> >> recent blog post which you may be impacted by:
> >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/
> >> <https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/>
> >>
> >> We will be seeking input and requirements in an open and transparent
> >> manner on the future of a git forge solution which will be run by the CPE
> >> team on behalf of the Fedora Community. This mail is being sent to the
> >> devel, mindshare and council-discuss lists for maximum visibility on a
> >> BCC to allow each list have their own views. Please forward it to any
> >> other list you may feel is relevant to maximise the exposure.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Leigh
> >
> > Alright, I have some questions that are not answered by the blog post.
> >
> > - What is going to happen to the two pagure instances at pagure.io
> > <http://pagure.io/>,
> > and src.fedoraproject.org <http://src.fedoraproject.org/>?
> >
> > I think pagure.io <http://pagure.io/> is a good home for fedora-related
> > projects (it was
> > the successor to fedorahosted.org <http://fedorahosted.org/>, after all,
> > IIRC). I know that many
> > group efforts are hosting their source code, ticketing system, etc.
> > there (Go SIG, Stewardship SIG, FPC, FESCo, etc.). If it is decided to
> > shut down pagure.io <http://pagure.io/>, I assume those projects will have
> > to be moved
> > somewhere?
> +1
>
> > Also, it's very nice to have a PR-based workflow for some
> > shared-maintenance packages on src.fedoraproject.org
> > <http://src.fedoraproject.org/>, and I don't
> > think losing that feature would be a good thing for fedora.
> +1
>
> > - How is GitHub considered to be an alternative here?
> +1 …and to my knowledge GitHub is closed source.
>
> > I don't think (public or hosted) GitHub can do what is currently done
> > on src.fedoraproject.org <http://src.fedoraproject.org/>, can it?
> > I'd also not want to see fedora use a closed-source product for such a
> > core service ...
> >
> > - Which features are missing from pagure, compared to the other forges?
> +1 It’s not clear reading the original POST
>
> > For my purposes, I don't miss any feature on pagure.io <http://pagure.io/>
> > compared to my
> > repositories on github.com <http://github.com/>, and OTTOMH, I can't come
> > up with any
> > missing features, at all …
> +1
From a _development_ POV, there's a number of things missing for it being
the primary git forge for pagure.io (not arguing about src.fedoraproject.org
or packaging use cases -- but some of those will benefit by these as well):
- Real full-text search across issues and PRs. No need to RTFM.
(
For those not having RTFM'd, you use "content:<keyword>" to do a
full-text search in current Pagure. I've argued that it should
behave like other forge's searches:
https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/2505#comment-582516
)
- A UI with a UX that makes sense.
https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/4543
https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/2193
https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/42 (duped: 343)
https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/2167
(and you could keep cherry-picking issues. There's a section of
opened ones with UI tags).
- The above is a huge category and I think its worth restating
some items:
- Search, search, search.
- Split diff
- Real line numbers in the diff
- Expanding context around the diff
(Diff, diff, diff?)
- Workflow on reviewing PRs is sub-optimal compared to most
other forges.
- Pagure is often slower than GitLab for me. YMMV.
- ...
For a period of time, IDM tried using Pagure for FreeIPA development.
They filed a huge number of issues. Now we host issues on Pagure, and
have moved development to GitHub. [*] I think we've mostly quit filing
bugs; the Pagure team has done a good job with the resources they've
been given, but they definitely need more resources to pull this off
to a high level.
I still try and file issues from time to time...
...but Pagure really doesn't compare in quality to Gogs/Gitea, much
less GitLab or GitHub from strictly a development point of view.
My 2c.
- Alex
[*]: My team (Dogtag) is also considering moving our issues off of
Pagure onto GitHub, to host them along side our code. I don't claim
to speak for all of IDM here though, just noting what they've done.
> >
> > TL;DR:
> > Can we please keep pagure? It already has the fedora-specific features
> > we need, and I don't mind a "slow" pace of development.
> > In my experience, it works really well, and I actually *like* to use
> > it (which is not true for GitLab ... which is slow and horrible)
> +1
>
> > Fabio
>
> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should
> dismiss pagure.
>
> Ciao
> Guido
> FAS: tartina
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
